Fisheries Committee on Jan. 20th, 2022

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I have two. I sent you an email, but I'm not sure how you want to handle them. I can just do one and then you can decide what to do next.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Yes, go ahead.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

We gave notice of a motion on December 14, although I'm making a slight amendment. It reads:

That the following report of this committee in the Second Session of the 43rd Parliament be adopted as a report in this session:

Report 2, Aquatic Invasive Species: A National Priority; and

that the Chair present the report to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We've heard the terms of the motion. Is there any discussion?

Go ahead, Mr. Hardie.

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

I would propose the same amendment that I proposed on the last of Mr. Perkins' motions so that a comprehensive response from the government would be requested. It would read, “That, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hardie.

Madame Desbiens, you have your hand up. Is that to talk to the amendment? Your hand is down now.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

No, Mr. Chair, I apologize. Actually, I just wanted to make another motion.

I wanted to make sure that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

That's okay. It's not a problem. I have you on the list.

Go ahead, Mr. Zimmer.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

I want to speak in favour of the motion itself.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

This is to the amendment.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

If this is to the amendment, I'll pause until that occurs. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I'm not seeing any other hands up on the proposed amendment.

Go ahead, Ms. Barron.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your patience as I navigate these waters.

I like that. I will use that, with this committee being FOPO.

Can someone please clarify how this amendment would result in a deferred outcome in the end for this motion? I'm trying to understand the differences that would result from this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Okay. I'll try to do my best with it. If I do it somewhat haphazardly, the clerk might want to correct me.

It's due to the fact that we can do any study we want if it relates to the work of the committee. A lot of times when reports are presented in the House, more often than not you're asking for the government to actually respond to a report that's being presented in the House.

There are times, of course, when the committee or the members may decide that they don't require a response. They just want to hear witnesses, do a particular study, report it to the House, and that's the end of it, but for the most part it's very common to ask for an official response from the government on a particular study.

Mr. Hardie, you have your hand up.

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

Yes. Actually, I'll confess to not being up to speed on all of the intricacies of this. I understand that leaving out the proposed amendment would create a situation in which motions could then be brought forward to the House of Commons that would involve debate and the use of, basically, House of Commons' time. We can avoid this by simply asking for this amendment and asking for the government to table a response.

Again, that's as deeply as I can go into the technicalities, but perhaps somebody has a bit more clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Go ahead, Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I think Mr. Hardie is right.

The simple difference is that with this amendment, the government tables a written response. With it worded as I propose, there is the option for this report to be debated in the House. With my motion, we're giving the leadership of the parties the option to do that. The amendment is a substantive change in approach, and it significantly changes the original motion.

It is something I would oppose.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

Not seeing any other hands up on the proposed amendment by Mr. Hardie, I think it might easier on this one to ask Tina to do a recorded division, since I know there are going to be some yeas and some nays.

Tina, when you're ready, please go ahead.

I'd like to remind you before you start that we'll take a short pause to make sure Mr. Cormier and Madam Desbiens are fully aware of what's been interpreted for them.

[The Clerk]

Thank you.

The question is on Mr. Hardie's amendment.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We'll go back to the original motion.

Is there any discussion?

Go ahead, Mr. Morrissey.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Chair, the only point I'd make is that the previous committee studied this issue. We just denied requesting that the government actually table a response or a report to the work of the committee. It's rather contradictive.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Kelloway.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I won't belabour the point, but I'm with MP Morrissey on this point. To not have a response from government is to me a—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

On a point of order, why are we debating a vote that just happened?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Agreed.