Fisheries Committee on April 21st, 2021

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In light of the massive undertaking that we've already done when it comes to the state of Pacific salmon and the study that we are winding down right now, would Mr. Hardie please enlighten me on any witnesses he would call for the study that he is proposing right now who haven't already come to the committee under the context of the current study to testify about the very same issues regarding Pacific salmon? It feels as if we're going to be doing a micro-set of the macro study we've just done, and I'm not sure that's the best use of the committee's time. I remain to be convinced, however.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

Mr. Hardie.

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

Thank you, Mr. Calkins and Mr. Arnold.

With regard to Mr. Arnold's point, the IUU study is important to us, too. I must say that we have supported that one all along.

As per our earlier discussions on the prawn fishery and the oyster fishery, I don't know if I can put this delicately, but I don't think we should leave the DFO to its own devices. I think we need to step in and provide the kind of leadership that it apparently needs from time to time, especially when it's dealing with something as important as this amount of money and a very transitional approach to a problem that has yet to be resolved: the disappearing salmon on the west coast.

Mr. Calkins, I have a list. I just don't have it here in front of me. However, I'd be more than happy to share that with you. You'll see, in the context of the people who now want to talk to us, the importance that they see, first of all, in the budget line, and second, in now how they see themselves participating in the restoration efforts for salmon.

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

Ken, can you...? We have identified almost every witness, every expert and every stakeholder for Pacific salmon. Who is new in this context? Who would be new? Who hasn't already just been here?

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

There are some new ones, Blaine. I don't have the list in front of me, unfortunately, but I'm more than happy to share that with you.

There are people identified on that list whom I don't recognize from our previous testimony. They have approached us. They have something to say. I think that because we are on the issue anyway, it's worthwhile, given the kind of investment we're talking about, to take the extra time to make sure it's as inclusive as possible in terms of the people who can play a role in helping us deal with our crisis with regard to Pacific salmon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hardie.

Mr. Arnold.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Tina Miller]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but the bells are ringing for a vote in the chamber.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Are they 15-minute bells or 30?

[The Clerk]

They're 30-minute bells.

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

Mr. Chair, you start walking west and I'll start walking east, and we'll see which one of us gets to the chamber first.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I don't think either one of us would get there very soon. I can't walk on water.

Since the bells are ringing, can I ask for unanimous consent to continue for another 15 minutes? That would leave 15 minutes on the bells for us to get set up to do our vote.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We'll deal with this shortly, in 15 minutes.

Madame Gill.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I was a little surprised by Mr. Hardie's motion. When an amount of money is set aside in the budget, it indicates a commitment to do something, some specific action that has been planned. I feel like Mr. Hardie's motion runs somewhat counter, as if the money announced isn't earmarked for any specific purpose.

Is that what Mr. Hardie wanted to say?

I just wanted to check if I understood correctly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Madame Gill.

Mr. Hardie.

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

Well, I think what we have heard—and we've heard this over the last two Parliaments in fact—is that a lot of work needs to be done. The study we've done so far—and we've heard from some excellent witnesses—gives us a sense as to what's in the realm of the doable versus what we can't control and where we then need to focus and prioritize.

Certainly since the budget came down and since these people have approached us, they now have ideas. We really need to work those practical ideas into this study to make the study itself worthwhile and to make this investment pay off as much as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hardie.

I see no further interventions, so we will vote on the motion by Mr. Hardie.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

In the few minutes we have left before we leave for a vote, I don't know if anybody wants to discuss schedule.

Mr. Calkins.

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

Actually, I just have a question. I'm looking for some clarification on this, because we've never had the ability before to be virtually attending a committee meeting and virtually voting in the House of Commons at the same time. Chair, you asked for permission to extend. Normally you would ask for that permission so that we would have enough time to still get to the chamber. I can assure you that I don't have to move one inch from where I'm currently situated in order to attend the chamber to vote.

I'm wondering what the ramifications of being able to continue with the committee meeting while a vote is in progress in the House of Commons might be, and whether or not the Speaker or the parties have come to any agreement that I might not be aware of in that matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that, Mr. Calkins.

It is my understanding that we're on a time limit. The bells were ringing and we could have stopped right there. I wanted to get the full two hours in if I could, and we're very close to doing that. When we get to that point, we will have to ask whether we're extending beyond that. I think there are probably about six or seven minutes left in the time slot allotted us. The only time we've extended in the past was when we were delayed by votes, and that hasn't happened today.

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

I guess my question is more theoretical, Chair. Let us suppose, for example, that this vote had been called 45 minutes ago and we were still in committee and had witnesses. Normally we would close the committee, be summoned to the chamber and lose all that committee time. We don't have any of those issues now. I'm just wondering what the correct procedure is here, given the fact that, through technology, we can actually be in two places at the same time.

Anyway, I'll leave that theoretical discussion for a future time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

That's not a problem. I appreciate that.

I see, Mr. Battiste, that you have your hand up.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Yes, I just wanted to propose that we get into the spot prawn study, followed by Bob Morrissey's motion, and then resume the discussion about the Pacific salmon. I would propose that order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Okay, that's a proposal by Mr. Battiste.

Mr. Hardie.

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

Yes, just given the logistics of getting witnesses, etc., I would want to see our Pacific salmon study go forward, as scheduled, next Monday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Yes, if I'm not mistaken, next Monday's meeting is already scheduled. That will go ahead as planned. That's not part of the actual motion that you just made.

I don't think it's going to be easy to battle out what we're doing next and over the next few meetings. I would suggest that we try to carve out some time along the way to have a more wholesome, fulsome discussion on the actual schedule. I know that some members have raised the issue of getting done what we already have on the docket. Some new ones have been added. We don't have a lot of time left between now and when the House is scheduled to recess in late June. I think it would be foolhardy to try to put that together in the short amount of time we have left today.

We all know now, and I'd ask for members to reflect on what we have done today in regard to motions and other things still on the docket for consideration when we come back. I'll try to set some time aside as soon as possible to do committee business—to do an actual schedule—if that's okay with committee members.