Fisheries committee  They would be done on other changes.

Fisheries committee  All right. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I would like to move a motion right now, if I may. I move: That, whereas the public fishery in British Columbia contributes $1.1 billion to Canada’s economy, and whereas the public fishery in British Columbia provides 9,000 jobs while benefiting 300,000 annual license holders, their families and businesses connected to the public fishery’s activities and tourism-related spending, and whereas since 2016, the public fishery in British Columbia has been damaged by unrelenting reductions of access to fisheries caused by the federal government’s preference to close fisheries rather than support balanced fishery enhancement and habitat restoration to grow fishery populations, that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans undertake a study of the socio-economic impact of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans’ decisions to close the recreational fishing of chinook salmon to fully understand the impact of this decision on small businesses and coastal communities; and, as part of its study, the Committee travel to the west coast to meet with those impacted including small businesses that have had to decrease staff numbers due to the reduction of opportunities in the public fishery; and, as part of its study, the Committee assess other measures that could deliver increases in chinook salmon stocks.

Fisheries committee  I'm of the opinion, or have been told, that there are printing issues and that we can't get paper copies.

Fisheries committee  Thanks, Chair. Am I out of time?

Fisheries committee  Well, I might be. Thank you, Chair.

Fisheries committee  Thank you, Mr. Doherty. Thank you, Chair. I sure am glad that they don't make ivory soup. All kidding aside, my understanding is that if we pass this legislation, shark fins in all of their forms would no longer be allowed to be imported into the country unless they were attached to a shark.

Fisheries committee  Mr. Forsyth, is that correct? It is. Okay, thank you. I want to go back to the officers' statuses when it comes to the legislation. Does a CBSA officer or a Canadian Wildlife Service officer have ex-officio status to enforce the Fisheries Act?

Fisheries committee  I don't know. It probably is, but I don't know.

Fisheries committee  If the coordinating amendment in Bill C-68 in the Senate actually says that Bill C-68 takes precedence and the CBSA officials and Canada Wildlife Service officials and CFIA officials have no official status under the Fisheries Act, then we have an enforcement issue. Would you agree?

Fisheries committee  I would agree, because the RCMP has broad, sweeping ex-officio status throughout Canadian legislation, and I'm pretty sure that CBSA has the same. I just wanted to get verification. I'm not expecting this to be a hiccup; I just wanted clarification. What does the department do as a general rule of practice when it comes to policy changes, whether they are drafted by the government or not?

Fisheries committee  That's how the coordinating amendment is working. Bill C-68 would take precedence. Okay, thank you.

Fisheries committee  Okay, that's fine. We've established that there's no conflict if Bill C-68 and Bill S-238 both pass. There's no statutory conflict. Is that correct? Just to reaffirm, there's a bit of a differentiation, and this would allow, in theory, law enforcement officials to then choose whichever legislative body they deemed would be most effective.

Fisheries committee  Thank you, Mel. Thank you to the officials for being here. This is interesting. First I would like some clarification. We've had the discussion about the difference between Bill S-238 and Bill C-68, but what is the difference between Bill S-238 and Bill C-68 and the current regulatory environment?

Fisheries committee  It could be said, then, that the legislation is simply enshrining in the legislative framework what we already have in place as a regulatory practice. Would that be a fair summation?

Fisheries committee  It's Bill S-238, but that's fine. Bill S-203 is a whale of a story.