Evidence of meeting #28 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 prawns.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:30 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Nancy Vohl
Mr. Chair, since most members have received it and the interpreters and the staff here have it in two languages, would you want us to read it?
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
I think Mr. Bragdon will read it now, as soon as I get the okay that everybody has received it.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Richard Bragdon Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
The motion is as follows: “That the Chair, Parliamentary Secretary and Liberal party commmittee members request an audience with the fisheries minister tomorrow to ask her to permanently rescind the reinterpretation and that the Liberal members report back to the committee on Wednesday, May 5.”
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I do, Mr. Chair.
Although what we've heard is quite shocking in many respects, we really do need to hear from the DFO because it goes beyond belief that there couldn't be some rationale for the decision they took, and I'm dying to hear it, so I would not support this.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
I appreciate the motion coming forward. I'd like some time to think about it. It's kind of a strange motion in its timing for tomorrow. That's the only thing.
I really appreciate it, actually, Mr. Bragdon, by the way. I really hope this is dropped before we even meet again on this, to be really frank with you. I don't think we should meet again on this.
Out of respect for Mr. Hardie's wanting to have the department come forward and explain themselves, we need to hear from them. Hopefully, the minister and the department deal with it themselves, unless they have a really good argument, which I can't imagine they do. I hope this gets fixed before we have to even meet again on this. That would be my hope, instead of tying up another whole committee meeting and two hours on this thing.
I think don't the motion is best decided today. I hope we can think about a pathway forward before we meet again on Wednesday.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think if we could get this passed today, it would certainly bring certainty to the harvesters out there, who are so unsure of where their future is going. They're probably buying tubs or not buying tubs depending on how they feel about this. Nothing in the motion precludes our carrying on with another meeting to hear from the officials on what decisions were made, and the reasons behind them. I think we certainly should hear from them as to why the decisions were made, because we hear of reinterpretations affecting other species as well.
I think we could continue with another meeting on this, but we certainly need to bring certainty to the harvesters at the soonest possible opportunity, and this would one way of doing that.
Thank you.
5:35 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Actually, I was thinking that the motion could be amended as well. The witnesses talked about maintaining the status quo for this year. So I would venture to guess that if we don't say it's definitive, we can get to that. Also, Mr. Johns said that tomorrow may be too soon to get an answer. So we could amend the motion to that effect.
So I will move an amendment, Mr. Chair, if that is still possible.
5:35 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
I would propose an amendment to only target the 2021 season, which will give fishers more certainty for this year. It would also not preclude the committee from continuing to receive witnesses, including from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, in the future.
That is my suggestion, Mr. Chair.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I think we're missing an opportunity here to go straight to the decision-maker, or supposedly the decision-maker, who is responsible for taking care of those involved in the fishery, and that would be the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
We, as parliamentarians, have heard from the people in the fishery, and there is no reasonable explanation as to why we shouldn't be talking to the minister. The minister has more than ample time to get a briefing quickly from her department and come to explain to the committee either the rationale for the department's decision or how she's planning on rectifying the situation. Time is of the essence, and it behooves the minister to do what's right and obvious, from what appears to be our unanimous support for the fishers and industry stakeholders who are before us today.
I don't, for the life of me, see why we wouldn't use the limited authority we have as a committee to actually do something good on behalf of the people who sent us here and get to the bottom of it right away. I don't know why we wouldn't do that.
I've rarely seen something that appears to be so open and shut before this committee in the years I've been on this committee—
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Well, I was going to talk to the motion before the amendment, but—
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
We have to deal with the amendment first, I believe. It's the normal way we would do it—
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Okay, go ahead. You're the chair. I'll respect that.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, sir.
If there's no other discussion on the amendment, I'd ask the clerk to perhaps read it out and we'll do the vote.
5:35 p.m.
The Clerk
On the amendment of Madame Gill, Mr. Battiste—
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Chair, a point of order. I believe you asked for the amendment to be read out again.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Yes, I did, just so everybody has an understanding of what the amendment actually is.