Fisheries Committee on Oct. 19th, 2020

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Let's not overlook this Wednesday. This is urgent. Everybody on this committee has agreed with that, but if we keep delaying it to next week.... As the mover of the motion pointed out, this is something we have to get on with urgently so that we're sending a signal from this committee that we're serious about looking at this and hearing from the parties. We should be moving on this as quickly as possible. I do not see why anybody would want to delay the process.

So, I would say this Wednesday as well as next Wednesday.

Also, could we get clarification on whether it's acceptable to the committee—I see Mr. Arnold agreed—that we submit witnesses by tomorrow, which would allow us to have the meeting on Wednesday, if we could? Then we could have a final date for witnesses next week, as suggested by Mr. Arnold.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Morrissey, I think everybody agrees with the two-stage witness list, initially by tomorrow and then again by next Monday or Tuesday to have the final list of witnesses.

Whether we could have a meeting this Wednesday as well would depend on whether the clerk can find an available time, whether we could get it on such short notice, and whether indeed witnesses are available to appear, either departmental officials or groups that have been identified as those who should be invited to appear.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Chair, if I may, could we have an indication of how many witnesses in total and how many witnesses per party, how many slots, might be available?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I think that would depend on how far out we go.

I think we'd like to see an initial witness list to determine the number of days that this is going to take. I wouldn't want to say that each party gets four or three or two or six without seeing the actual witness list, and then we can determine how many meetings we need. I know that Mr. Battiste originally said five meetings. Once we see the witness list, we may find that we can do it in four, or that we have to go to six to make it more inclusive. I think everybody would be in agreement with that.

I guess the onus—

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Madame Gill, go ahead.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

It isn't 3 p.m. Pacific time here. Can you tell me by what time tomorrow we need to find witnesses? What's the deadline?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

How about 5 p.m. eastern time? Would that be okay, Madame Gill?

Hearing nothing, I'll assume it is.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I completely agree, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We'll get the initial list by 5 p.m. tomorrow, and the final list by 5 p.m. the following Tuesday. We'll leave it to the clerk to see if we can get a meeting time for this Wednesday and next Wednesday as an additional time slot in these two weeks.

I would leave it to the clerk to see if witnesses can be available in those time frames from the list that she gets tomorrow, so try to get them in as early as you can. Don't leave it to the last minute, so that if the time slot is available for this Wednesday, we can get witnesses lined up and get this study started.

Does that seem reasonable to you, Madam Clerk?

[The Clerk]

I will do whatever the committee tells me. It's good for me if it's good for the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Seeing that we have that issue dealt with, I'll go back to my original speakers list with the time that we may have left.

Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back to the notice of motion that I put forward last week, which has now been distributed in both official languages.

Do I need to read it all out again?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

You probably should read it into the record, yes.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Okay. Here we go then:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and given the decline in Pacific salmon stocks and the ongoing situation with Big Bar Landslide, the committee undertake a study on the state of Pacific salmon and make recommendations on next steps to ensure for the long-term health of these stocks, as well as the commercial, indigenous and recreational fisheries that depend on them; that this study consist of at least six meetings, with two of those meetings focused on the Big Bar slide, that the committee call witnesses including senior departmental officials, First Nations, and relevant stakeholder groups to testify before committee; that the committee report to the House; that the Committee reintroduce all testimony and submissions on this subject from the First Session of the 43rd Parliament to be included and used for considering and drafting a report, and that all previous Committee meetings on this subject be considered as meetings as a part of this study as outlined in this motion.

Perhaps to shorten the time frame to deal with this one, I would add that I'm aware that Mel had two motions that relate to this. If he's agreeable, I would accept those as friendlies to be included, because they certainly flesh out what we're attempting to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Okay, we've heard the motion.

Mr. Arnold, do you want to comment?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, I have two amendments to the motion, and I think they will improve and clarify the motion.

The first amendment would be: “That in its remaining meetings studying the Pacific salmon, the committee invite witnesses from British Columbia's salmon farming industry to provide testimony on actions currently being taken by the sector to reduce impacts on wild salmon, and witnesses from DFO to provide an update on recently published risk assessment related to open-net pen aquaculture.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Okay, we've heard the proposed amendment.

Is there any discussion?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

I'm sorry, but I'd like to hear the motion again. Did he say “DFO officials” or did he say “any”?

Mr. Arnold, would you agree to add “any relevant stakeholders”? I believe it would be important to hear not just from department officials but also others.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Chair, we have heard from stakeholders on one side of the net pen aquaculture, but we haven't heard from the aquaculture sector itself. If you feel there are other witnesses who may need to be included, those could probably be in there.

I will read it out again: “That in its remaining meetings studying the Pacific salmon, the committee invite witnesses from British Columbia's salmon farming industry to provide testimony on actions currently being taken by the sector to reduce impacts on wild salmon, and witnesses from DFO to provide an update on the recently published risk assessment related to open-net pen aquaculture.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Okay, we've heard the proposed amendment.

Seeing no further discussion, can we please vote on the amendment as proposed?

[The Clerk]

I believe Madame Gill has a comment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Madame Gill, go ahead.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I just need to clarify something. You're telling me that these witnesses will be part of the mandatory meetings that were already scheduled. Is that right? So there are no additions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Yes.