Evidence of meeting #4 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I have another motion to make, if that's in order at this point.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Can I follow through with the clerk on the question I just asked?
Madam Clerk, I put forward a study on illegal and under-reported and unregulated fishing. That was passed by this committee. You didn't include that as part of the schedule. It should be included, because it was passed by the committee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Actually, Mr. Zimmer, if it wasn't included, it just means that it will follow what's in order. Once we see what the schedule looks like with this in it, if you want to bring forward a motion to start your study on a certain date, or at the end of another study, that's not a problem. We can do that.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
I think for clarity, though, it was passed in committee, which means it should be attached to the schedule at some point.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
It would have to be in a motion.
If I'm correct on what Mr. Cormier moved, it was to make sure we knew what we were doing in the next short order. I don't think his intent was to include every motion that had already been adopted by the committee, to get it done in a schedule. As I said a couple of times, the schedule will fall out of line. There could be legislation, for example, come in that we can't start something at a certain date, and everything will get pushed back.
I don't think there was any intent to ignore the fact that this study is there as well, waiting to be scheduled.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
I think I'll pass it back to my colleague Mr. Perkins, who wanted to speak to this, I believe.
Thank you.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I would propose the following motion:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), and following the study on Mr. Arnold's motion with regard to science and DFO, the committee conduct the following studies, in the following order, at dates to be determined in the future: the study by pinnipeds proposed by Mr. Small; the study on corporate concentration and foreign ownership proposed by Madame Desbiens; the study on IUU proposed by Mr. Zimmer; the study on safety at sea proposed by myself and Mr. Perkins; and then finally the study on small craft harbours proposed by Madame Desbiens.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
That's all fine, Mr. Perkins, but before we started discussing Mr. Zimmer's question, Ms. Barron had put her hand up about wanting to put forward a motion. Could we deal with that first?
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Sure. I'll try to remember how to say that again, if I have to propose it—unless you have it recorded.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, committee, for your time. I want to bring forward a motion that I believe everybody should have.
The motions is as follows:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the state of Pacific Salmon; That the evidence and documentation received by the committee during the Second Session of the 43rd Parliament on the subject be taken into consideration by the committee in the current session; That the committee adopt the report entitled Pacific Salmon: Ensuring the Long-Term Health of Wild Populations and Associated Fisheries adopted during the Second Session of the 43rd Parliament; That the Chair present the report to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the government table a comprehensive response to this report, and that the committee set a deadline for dissenting or supplementary opinions.
I'm bringing this forward. Again, I don't want to take up a lot of time, but quite a bit of time was spent on this work, with a lot of great recommendations brought forward by experts in the field and so on. We want an opportunity to ensure that we have an official comprehensive response to this report provided as we continue to work in this area, and to be part of this important body of knowledge. It's been nine months since this report was concluded. We feel that this is an important quick study for us to put forward so that we can have this response in place.
Thank you.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Chair, perhaps I could just seek some clarification from Ms. Barron. Is she asking for another study or is she asking for the report from the previous study to be resubmitted and a response requested?
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
That's a great question.
Following the recommendations of the clerk, we have called it a study as that is the process, I am told, but of course I can get clarification from the clerk.
The intention of this is to receive a comprehensive response to the report and not to undertake a new study. We already have done a lot of work in this area and just want to have that official response.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you for that clarification because it's obvious, as Mr. Arnold's question showed, some of us were thinking we were going to restudy the Pacific salmon study. It was a little bit scary at first, but no, there's no problem with asking for it to be retabled and presented in the House as we know.
I guess that's a motion by Ms. Barron.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
The clerk has it, so you'll all have it very shortly. We'll just take a moment to give you a chance to get it and look at it.
Mr. Morrissey.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Mr. Chair, it refers to undertaking a study of the state of the Pacific salmon.
Could we get clarification? Is it simply retabling the original study, the report?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
The text is formulated that way just so we can table that report. That's the way it has to be written.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
This is an administrative text to allow the original report, the original study, to be tabled.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
I'm trusting the clerk on this one.
Okay, from the clerk, it appears that in order for us to re-present it in the House and ask for a response, you have to recreate the study. You're not actually doing a study but you're recreating the fact that the committee did do the actual study. If we present it in the House, it's like we just did the study per se.
Mr. Perkins.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I believe in the last meeting we dealt with several of these, both tabled the studies and not, but they were not worded this way. They were worded strictly pursuant to Standing Order 108 that the report tabled in whatever Parliament was readopted. This looks to me like—
