Evidence of meeting #25 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Your first motion was and remains carried. However, I don't recall seeing the written version of the one just put forward.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
I'm sorry, I think there has been a misunderstanding. Mr. Hardie wanted to move a motion, as I understand it. However, I don't have that motion in writing. The motion I was referring to carried several months ago. According to that motion, I was supposed to receive the motion in writing.
5 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
We don't have your first motion in writing either, as I recall.
Would it be possible to send it to us?
5 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Mrs. Gill's motion carried at the first meeting. According to the motion, motions for which no notice was filed are to be forwarded to committee members in writing. That motion definitely carried.
However, the clerk and I do not recall seeing a written version of the motion Mr. Hardie has just put forward, but perhaps we are mistaken.
Would it be possible to send us the text in question?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Yes, Mr. Chair, I do. I hope that staff are listening in and can get it to Nancy right away.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
We'll wait and see if they're able to get that to us.
While we're waiting for that, I will remind members that, if for no other reason than to be co-operative, it would be great, if anyone knows they're putting a motion forward during committee business, to please supply it in at least one language to the clerks. That way, it can be translated for all members of the committee and distributed, so we would know and have knowledge of what is coming forward.
5:05 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Perfect. I got the text, so I'm sending that at the moment.
It's gone; you should have it now.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Nancy.
I'll give everybody a minute to receive it and to read it.
Has everybody had a chance to receive the motion and to read it? I see Madame Gill giving a thumbs up, so I would think everybody else has it.
Mr. Beech.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
I have a question for the mover of the motion. It doesn't say this outright in the motion, but can I assume that you're...? This isn't a separate study; you want this tacked on to the current salmon study. I'm trying to get your intention.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Yes, that's correct, because it fits hand in glove, obviously, with the intent of that study, which is to look at options to restore Pacific salmon.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It seems highly unusual to me that the committee should spend this much time looking at a government budget line or a program. Although I certainly support anything we can do to restore our Pacific salmon stocks, I believe it's beyond the scope of the committee to determine how the government spends those dollars; that's the department's work.
Mr. Chair, can Mr. Hardie provide a little more background on why he thinks this is necessary? The Pacific salmon study has been dragging on for such a great length of time that I don't know whether we will ever see the end of it if we keep tagging on new things. We've certainly heard testimony that conservation work is needed, but let's.... Can we maybe get a little more clarification from Mr. Hardie?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Don't answer yet, Mr. Hardie. A couple more people have questions or concerns.
Madame Gill.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My remarks were along the same lines as Mr. Arnold's. I was wondering if it is the committee's role to tell the government how to allocate the money in the budget. I would imagine that some thought has already been given to that.
I am always willing to help in any way I can, but I believe that countless avenues that the government could use as models have already been suggested in committee testimony.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We've heard really good testimony that talked about the urgency of resolving the situation. The budget has now provided the ability to move forward. I think some of the Indigenous communities have stated that they want to be heard when looking at solutions, so this isn't us telling the governments how to spend it, but hearing from those stakeholders as to how they would like to see it done.
I think it's an important thing to do, and we've come this far within the study, so let's make sure it's done right.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Battiste.
Mr. Hardie, you'd like to respond to those comments.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
Obviously, this is a very interesting development and it was borne out by the fact that because many people here on the coast know that I am on the committee, I was approached as soon as the budget came down by people who definitely wanted to tell us what they thought should be done with the kind of funding that's been available.
In many of his interventions or questioning, Mr. Johns has brought up the fact that to this point, the resources have not been available to do important things in his riding and along the west coast of Vancouver Island. Finally, I think we now have an opportunity, because this isn't just hypothetical; these are real things that can be done, and we can now start to get our head around prioritizing things. This can influence our recommendations and certainly help us expedite the work that needs to be done quite urgently.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll go back to comments I made previously. We continue to add on spur-of-the-moment studies here, detracting from the key studies that this committee already identified that we would prioritize.
For example, there is the study on IUU fishing. We know we can produce more fish, but if we continue to let them be captured through illegal, unreported and unregulated harvest, they're of no benefit to Canadians. Madam Gill is waiting for her study on the Quebec sport fishery. The committee already discussed long ago that we would try to represent all Canadians. We've done a study on west coast issues. We've done a study on east coast issues. The IUU study would cover all coasts: east, west and north. We have tried to be balanced on this committee.
Now we seem to be chasing tails around all over the place. We really need to focus on what's going to make the biggest difference to fisheries in general right across Canada. I put faith in the department, to a certain extent, that once it has the funds available, it will be able to find places to use those funds to make the most significant investments in the restoration of our salmon stocks. However, for this committee to try to be informed and to make expert decisions or recommendations in even just three meetings would be quite a challenge. I really hesitate to.... I question Mr. Hardie's motives here and want him to recognize how he's delaying these other motions for studies that we have all agreed to as a committee.
Thank you.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Arnold.
Before I go to Mr. Hardie to respond, I'll go to Mr. Calkins.