Fisheries Committee on April 21st, 2021

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Johns, for bringing this forward. It is a very important issue.

I think this uncertainty is having an effect from coast to coast with the prawn issue, but there could also be other issues that keep emerging. If these regulations have been interpreted one way for 50 years, and all of a sudden they're being changed or there's uncertainty around them, it really sends shock waves to the whole industry across the country, coast to coast, at a time when they need as little uncertainty as possible. There's enough of that in what we're all dealing with in terms of the pandemic.

I totally appreciate where this is coming from and share the concerns around it. I reference the concern of my colleague Mr. Arnold that we have a lot of things on the docket. If we can incorporate this somewhere, obviously we want to, because this is very important to our fishing industry from coast to coast. We have to alleviate the uncertainty.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Bragdon.

Mel.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to draw attention to the fact that we have also heard from the aquaculture industry, and lately the oyster farmers, who possibly aren't able to take their oysters to farmers' markets because of another reinterpretation or sudden change in rules that has affected them. This is ongoing. This is more than just spot prawns. It's a persistent trend within this department and within the minister's offices recently. It's more than just spot prawns.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you.

Seeing no other indication of an intervention, we will move to the vote on Mr. Johns' proposed motion.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 11, nays 0)

Thank you, Tina.

We'll now go to Madame Gill, please.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to discuss three motions, essentially about language issues.

The first is on the issue of technical testing for witnesses and it reads:

That the clerk inform each witness who is to appear before the Committee that the House Administration support team must conduct technical tests to check the connectivity and the equipment used to ensure the best possible sound quality; and that the Chair advise the Committee, at the start of each meeting, of any witness who did not perform the required technical tests.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, we will proceed with a recorded vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Ms. Gill, please proceed.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you so much for the wonderful spirit of camaraderie. It's a matter of respect.

The second motion concerns documents translated by the Translation Bureau:

That all documents submitted for Committee business that do not come from a federal department or that have not been translated by the Translation Bureau be sent for prior linguistic review by the Translation Bureau before being distributed to members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Bragdon, you have your hand up.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you. I propose a friendly amendment for Ms. Gill to consider. After “federal department”, would she consider adding “members' offices”?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Seeing no further discussion, we can vote on the proposed amendment first, and then on the motion as amended.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We'll go now to the motion as amended from Ms. Gill.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Ms. Gill, we can now go to your third motion.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

The third motion concerns substantive motions and written amendments to substantive motions in both official languages:

That the text of any substantive motion or any motion in amendment of a substantive motion be distributed in writing in both official languages to all Committee members before the Committee begins debate on such a motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Are there any interventions?

Mr. Calkins, go ahead.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Could the clerk remind the committee, for my benefit at least, what a substantive motion entails?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Ms. Vohl.

[Nancy Vohl, Legislative Clerk]

I can certainly answer that. A substantive motion is any motion that is not a dilatory motion or that is not a motion, for example, to adopt a clause or paragraph or something like that. It is any motion that is, basically, a text that would be debatable and amendable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Not seeing any other interventions, can we vote on the motion?

Ms. Vohl.

[Nancy Vohl]

In that case, Mr. Chair, if the committee were to adopt the motion, the clerk and staff would probably need the committee to give guidance on practical terms for what it means on a daily basis for a regular meeting, and what the expectations are while we meet.

The committee can definitely adopt and proceed to the vote, and give guidance if it's adopted, or members can ask questions right now, and they can vote after.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I'm not seeing any hands up.

We can vote first, and if we need some guidance, we'll get it then, depending on if the motion is adopted or turned down.

[Nancy Vohl]

Do you have any questions on practical terms and clarifications?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Chair, the clerk is suggesting that we would have to give clarity, should we adopt this motion, on a number of issues and directions. There are ramifications from the result of this vote on how this committee operates that are substantive enough that the clerk has concerns.

I would like to know if the clerks would like to elaborate on what those kinds of ramifications and implications are, before I cast my vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

Ms. Vohl.

[Nancy Vohl]

Thank you.

With respect to substantive motions and any motion introduced on the floor during a meeting, you have passed a motion that the text of the motion should be distributed beforehand in both official languages.

If a text is produced and the quality of the translation is fair to middling, who is responsible for checking the quality of the translation?

The clerk is not an official translator. If a text is provided to us directly during the meeting, does that mean we have to send it the Translation Bureau and wait for a response?

Mrs. Gill could perhaps offer her opinion on how to proceed. I am thinking, for example, of a situation that occurred in the fall. We had a motion that was moved in public and it had several amendments.

How should the clerk and the chair react and proceed in a situation like that, and what does Mrs. Gill think?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Madame Gill, do you want to hold up for one second?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Yes, of course.