Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
Honourable members of the committee, I see a quorum.
I must inform the members that the clerk of the committee can receive motions only for the election of the chair. She can't receive any other types of motions and she can't entertain points of order or participate in the debate.
We can now proceed to the election of the chair.
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the chair must be a member of the government party.
I am now ready to receive motions for the election of the chair.
Thank you, everyone. I wish every election could be as easy and be by unanimous consent. I'm sure some people probably voted for someone Liberal for the first time, but I do appreciate it being by unanimous consent of all parties. I look forward to everybody working together as we have in the past.
I especially want to congratulate Mr. Bragdon on his new appointment on the Conservative side. I welcome from Cape Breton—Canso, Mr. Kelloway; and a new member to the committee, Mr. Mazier, from Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa. You have big shoes to fill. The former member, Mr. Sopuck, added quite a bit of knowledge and participated a lot in this committee. He was sorely missed when he decided not to run again, but I'm sure you're up to the challenge.
I welcome Mr. d'Entremont, whose riding is West Nova. I'm sure the fishery is important to that area of his province, like it is to many of us in our provinces. Mr. d'Entremont, I'm sure we'll get alone fine. In school, my son had a teacher by the name of d'Entremont, and I hope our relationship is a lot better than he had with his teacher, because it wasn't a good one. I'm sure it will be much better than that.
I will specify with you and the committee how you can proceed. The motion adopted by the House on September 23 was that all votes should be taken by recorded vote, unless there is unanimous consent of the committee to agree or unless it is a vote on division.
I don't know if the committee today wants to proceed with a recorded vote for every single vote or if, Mr. Chair, you want to ask if we should proceed the other way.
I believe that it's been duly agreed at other meetings that, “the witnesses be given five minutes for their opening statements, that, whenever possible, witnesses provide the committee with their opening statements 72 hours in advance, that, at the discretion of the chair during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated six minutes for the first questioner of each party, as follows: round one: Conservative Party; Liberal Party; Bloc Québécois; New Democratic Party. For the second and subsequent rounds, the order and time for questioning to be as follows: Conservative Party, five minutes, Liberal Party, five minutes, Bloc Québécois, two and a half minutes and New Democratic Party, two and a half minutes; Conservative Party, five minutes and Liberal Party, five minutes.”
That's the first amendment.
I will just go to the second amendment for other in camera meetings, “...that the committee may only meet in camera for the following purposes: a) to consider a draft report; (b) to attend briefings considering national security; (c) to consider lists of witnesses; (d) for any other reason with the unanimous consent of the committee. That all votes taken in camera, with the exception of votes regarding the consideration of draft reports be recorded in the minutes of proceedings, including how each member voted when recorded votes are requested; that any motion to sit in camera is debatable and amendable.”
Mr. Chair, the third routine motion is “Meeting Without a Quorum”:
That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least four (4) members are present, including two members of the opposition and two members of the government, but when travelling outside the parliamentary precinct, that the meeting begin after fifteen (15) minutes, regardless of members present.
Mr. Chair, the fourth routine motion is “Time for Opening Remarks and Questioning of Witnesses”. I understand there may be an amendment to this.
The motion is as follows:
That the witnesses from any one organization be allowed up to six (6) minutes to make their opening statement; that, during the questioning of witnesses, at the discretion of the Chair, there be allocated six (6) minutes for the first questioner of each party as follows: Conservative Party, Liberal Party, Bloc Québécois, New Democratic Party; for the second round and subsequent rounds, the order and time for questioning be as follows: Conservative Party, five (5) minutes, Liberal Party, five (5) minutes, Conservative Party, five (5) minutes, Liberal Party, five (5) minutes, Bloc Québécois, two and a half (2.5) minutes, New Democratic Party, two and a half (2.5) minutes.
I understand there may be an amendment, Mr. Battiste.
That witnesses be given five (5) minutes for their opening statements; that whenever possible, witnesses provide the committee with their opening statements 72 hours in advance; that, at the discretion of the chair, during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated six (6) minutes for the first questioner of each party as follows: Round 1: Conservative Party; Liberal Party; Bloc Québécois; New Democratic Party. For the second and subsequent rounds, the order and time for questioning be as follows: Conservative Party, five (5) minutes; Liberal Party, five (5) minutes; Bloc Québécois, two and a half (2.5) minutes; New Democratic Party, two and a half (2.5) minutes; Conservative Party, five (5) minutes; Liberal Party, five (5) minutes.
Mr. Chair, if I can intervene, I would possibly suggest members keep in mind that when the text of a motion refers to 72 hours, maybe it would be a good idea to specify “72 hours whenever possible” because witnesses are not always invited more than 72 hours ahead of time. Also, sometimes it is not feasible for them to provide a full text to us within 72 hours. I want to let the chair know that it would probably be a good thing to keep in mind, however, that it is “whenever feasible and whenever possible”.
Routine motion five is on “Document Distribution”:
That only the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents to members of the Committee only when the documents are available in both official languages, and that witnesses be advised accordingly.
Mr. Chair, this is a routine motion on “Travel, Accommodation and Living Expenses of Witnesses”:
That, if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses not exceeding two...representatives per organization; provided that, in exceptional circumstances, payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the Chair.
Mr. Chair, this is a routine motion on “Access to In Camera Meetings”:
That, unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to have one staff member at an in camera meeting and that one additional person from each House officer's office be allowed to be present.
Mr. Chair, this is a routine motion on “Notice of Motion”:
That a forty-eight (48) hours notice, interpreted as a two (2) nights, shall be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the Committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration, provided that (1) the notice be filed with the clerk of the committee no later than 4:00 p.m. from Monday to Friday; that (2) the motion be distributed to members in both official languages by the clerk on the same day the said notice was transmitted if it was received no later than the deadline hour; and that (3) notices received after the deadline hour or on non-business days be deemed to have been received during the next business day and that when the committee is travelling on official business, no substantive motions may be moved.
Mr. Chair, this is a routine motion on “Orders of Reference from the House Respecting Bills”:
That, in relation to Orders of Reference from the House respecting Bills, (a) the clerk of the committee shall, upon the committee receiving such an Order of Reference, write to each member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee to invite those members to file with the clerk of the committee, in both official languages, any amendments to the Bill, which is the subject of the said Order, which they would suggest that the committee consider; (b) suggested amendments filed, pursuant to paragraph (a), at least 48 hours prior to the start of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill to which the amendments relate shall be deemed to be proposed during the said consideration, provided that the committee may, by motion, vary this deadline in respect of a given Bill; and (c) during the clause-by-clause consideration of a Bill, the Chair shall allow a member who filed suggested amendments, pursuant to paragraph (a), an opportunity to make brief representations in support of them.
The last routine motion is with regard to “Other—In Camera Meetings”: “That the committee may meet in camera only for the following purposes: (a) to consider a draft report; (b) to attend briefings concerning national security; (c) to consider lists of witnesses; (d) for any other reason with the unanimous consent of the committee, that all votes taken in camera, with the exception of votes regarding the consideration of draft reports, be recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings, including how each member voted when recorded votes are requested; that any motion to sit in camera is debatable and amendable.”
Perhaps I can ask Mr. Morrissey to repeat the text of the motion. I believe it's different from the text of the motion the committee voted to adopt in the previous session, in 43-1. I just want to make sure the members and I have the correct and final text of what you just said.
This text has been advised by PROC: “That the committee may meet in camera only for the following purposes: (a) to consider a draft report; (b) to attend briefings concerning national security; (c) to consider lists of witnesses; (d) for any other reason with the unanimous consent of the committee, that all votes taken in camera, with the exception of votes regarding the consideration of draft reports, be recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings, including how each member voted when recorded votes are requested; that any motion to sit in camera is debatable and amendable.”
I believe I have an amendment here: “That the committee may meet in camera only for the following purposes: (a) to consider a draft report; (b) to attend briefings concerning national security; (c) to consider lists of witnesses; (d) for any other reason with the unanimous consent of the committee, that all votes taken in camera, with the exception of votes regarding the consideration of draft reports, be recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings, including how each member voted when recorded votes are requested; that any motion to sit in camera is debatable and amendable.”
First, I would have liked to move motions that build upon the routine motions that we voted on.
Second, there's a delay in the interpretation, which is completely normal. However, we often proceed to a vote by unanimous consent before I've heard the entire discussion. I'm the only member in this situation. Perhaps the interpreters could have a little rest if we were to change the pace.
I'm feeling a bit rushed, even though I'm in agreement, as you've noticed. There was no issue this time, except with regard to an amendment to the routine motions that I was unable to move. I'll drop it, but I'd like us to change the pace, please.
That in order to ensure informed decision-making when members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans vote on a motion that permits the usage of the powers conferred on the Committee by Standing Order 108(2), each member of the Committee shall be provided with a written version in both official languages of a motion to study before a vote is held on its adoption.
That in order to ensure informed decision-making when members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans vote on a motion that permits the usage of the powers conferred on the Committee by Standing Order 108(2), each member of the Committee shall be provided with a written version in both official languages of a motion to study before a vote is held on its adoption.
That all meetings that are not required to be held in camera or that take place within the parliamentary precinct will be televised or webcast, subject to room allocations and availability of Multimedia Services.
I know I am jumping in, but there's something very significant going on that is of great urgency in Nova Scotia. This morning I woke to disturbing videos, first-hand accounts of videos of violence escalating between fishing groups. I saw vehicles set on fire, lobsters purposely poisoned and RCMP unable to contain an escalating mob mentality that's breaking out in our area.
It's shocking in Canada to see this. I find myself struggling as a parliamentarian, a Nova Scotian and a member of the surrounding communities to reckon with the violence and, frankly, the hatred that has bubbled to the surface in this dispute that's going on.
Not long ago I took a trip down to Saulnierville because I wanted to hear from some of the constituents of Sydney—Victoria who had gone down to show solidarity in some of the protests. I saw the divisions between the Mi’kmaq and the Acadians, historic allies who had been working together for more than 400 years.
Once I heard an amazing story from Lieutenant Governor Arthur LeBlanc, an Acadian, who talked about how his family was saved by the Mi’kmaq. It makes these acts of violence so disheartening, the way they stand in such contrast to the partnerships the communities in Nova Scotia have forged over the centuries.
Make no mistake, what we're seeing in Pubnico today is far beyond a fisheries issue. I know this. It has become a nexus for a multitude of deep-seated issues facing this country like systemic racism, the role of law enforcement, our sense of shared history and the mutual obligations of treaty rights between the Crown and indigenous partners.
These are profound issues; they're complex. Many are beyond the scope of this committee, but at the centre of this crisis is the Mi’kmaq constitutionally protected treaty rights in the pursuit of fisheries, moderate livelihood fisheries, that was not only once approved by the Supreme Court of Canada, but twice.
Many of the negotiations over institutionalizing these treaties have been carried out by the Department of Fisheries and fall under the purview of this committee. While this is only a small part of the crisis, I believe this committee, by examining the implementation of the Mi’kmaq constitutionally protected treaty rights to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood and evaluating the current rights and reconciliation agreement process, can play a proactive role in this ongoing situation and inform standards and practices that could prevent such a crisis from happening again.
As such, and recognizing the multitude of issues facing the committee and the demands on its time, I would like to bring forward the following motion: “That the Standing Committee of Fisheries and Oceans undertake a study to examine the implementation of the Mi’kmaq constitutionally protected treaty rights to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood. In order to evaluate the current rights and reconciliation agreement process and identify issues that need to be addressed and the recommended path forward, the committee call witnesses including senior officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, first nations, Mi’kmaq, scientists, as well as fisheries associations and interested stakeholder groups to testify before the committee; that the chair be empowered to coordinate the necessary witnesses, resources and scheduling to complete this task; and that the committee report its conclusions and recommendations to the House of Commons.”
I want to thank Mr. Battiste for bringing this forward.
I don't know if many of you would know about the incident in Pubnico this morning. Late last night it happened about seven houses from where I grew up, and to think that this kind of incident would happen is reprehensible to me. I don't know what to call it. I don't think it's hatred, but it is a mistrust of everyone.
Mr. Chair, if we were side by side, this is when I would talk to you in your ear, but obviously we're not side by side.
Ms. Gill just moved a motion, and it was adopted that, in order for debates on a motion, the motion would have to be received in the two languages or at least have been explained well enough by interpretation, who I believe also do not have the text.
Would it be possible for Mr. Battiste to either repeat very slowly the text of his motion or send it to us so interpretation can provide it at a pace that Ms. Gill and other members and staff can write down and follow?
The motion by Madam Gill was just adopted, so now it is one of the routine motions of the committee.
As I heard the motion, I believe I heard the words that it “should” be provided in both official languages” not “must” be provided in both official languages. Those would mean two different things in legal proceedings. “Should” is not making it mandatory. If that's the wording of the motion it would not be necessary.
Are we discussing the motion that was moved, which does not include any conditionals? The word “should” does not appear in either the English or French version. I want to know what will happen in this respect.
I have a copy of your motion, Madame Gill, and there is no “should” or “must” in it. It says “that each member of the committee shall be provided with a written version in both official languages of a motion to study before a vote is held on its adoption.”
It may have been interpreted differently from French to English when it was being read out, but Madame Gill did provide the actual text of the motion, so it “shall” be provided in both official languages before a vote can be held on it.
We've heard the motion but Mr. Battiste, please make sure it is provided to the committee in both official languages before it is voted on.
It's such an important issue right now. Things are blowing up. People are going to get hurt. I am only a temporary member of this committee. It would be nice to be able to speak to it but knowing that's now the motion, unfortunately that puts the kibosh on this. It's unfortunate we can't talk about something so important.
Would it be possible, in light of the urgency of the situation—we also think it needs to be addressed very quickly by this committee—to push for an emergency meeting of the committee so we can get this motion back on the table and talk about it? Mr. Battiste needs to give notice to all the committee members so we can get this motion on the table to talk about it.
We also want to make amendments to the motion because we certainly think this is a high priority for us. The Nuu-chah-nulth situation is absolutely connected to what's going on with Marshall. We think indigenous fishing rights should be broadened, so we want to have a conversation on this.
Mr. Johns, I appreciate your intervention but as was voted on just a few minutes ago, we cannot discuss or vote on a motion that's not presented in both official languages. Everybody on the committee passed it with unanimous consent. Unfortunately, that's where it stands, so we have to wait to get it in that form.
I agree, this should be dealt with as soon as possible and we'll take every opportunity to try to make sure that happens.
Mr. Chair, possibly as a point of order, could we ask for unanimous consent to have Mr. Battiste read it slowly for the interpretation, and then be able to move beyond this point because of its urgency? If the committee gives unanimous consent it can overrule earlier decisions.
Personally, I'm opposed, because the motion has already been adopted.
The debate on the motion raised some issues. If we don't fully understand the text being read, we'll make mistakes. For example, the use of “must” or “should” has been an issue in the past. In order to debate and vote on the motion in an informed manner, we need the text in both official languages.
I know that anybody who had motions to introduce today had no way of knowing that this motion would be introduced by you and pass unanimously. I have been told that the interpreters now have a copy of the motion of Mr. Battiste in its translated form. Would it be okay with you to ask the interpreters to read out the motion in French right now, so that it would be on the record and we could then move on to that? We have had several members talk about the importance of getting this started and on the record as soon as possible. They want to speak to it.
Doing this today in no way means that this is what we will do every time. I won't ask again for permission to do this. Everybody can give their notice of motion and put their motion on the record, but it cannot be voted on unless it has been received in both official languages going forward. I'm asking for permission to do this one simply because I see such interventions that will be taking place...and getting this dealt with and on the record as soon as possible.
No, because it's tantamount to asking for unanimous consent regarding Mr. Morrissey's proposal, which I took issue with. Of course, we're being told that the situation is urgent. However, a prorogation prevented us from continuing with the committee meetings.
Personally, in order to debate and vote on the motion in an informed manner, I need both the English and French versions. It's unfortunate, but I must keep to this.
There are rules. If we break them, I believe that it shows a lack of rigour and credibility. Since there are two official languages in Canada, I want both versions. It's necessary.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chair, and all the members, for your understanding. I also want to thank the interpreters.
Hearing no unanimous consent, I will let members know that they can introduce any motions today, of course, but if they are not in both official languages, we will not be able to vote on them until they are provided in that form.
I understand fully, Madam Gill. I was in no way trying to take away the privileges expected—
Mr. Chair, perhaps you can explain this procedurally. If we want to call for an emergency meeting of the fisheries and oceans committee to discuss this motion, so that Ms. Gill and the whole committee will have the motion in both official languages, what would that require right now?
Well, it would probably require a motion and the consent of the clerk to then be able to do that. I would like to get to other motions first that people have indicated and put up their hands to bring forward.
We'll now consider that Mr. Battiste has given notice of motion.
I would like to give notice of the following motion: “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and given the decline in Pacific salmon stocks and the ongoing situation with Big Bar Landslide, the committee undertake a study on the state of Pacific salmon and make recommendations on next steps to ensure for the long-term health of these stocks, as well as the commercial, indigenous and recreational fisheries that depend on them; that this study consist of at least six meetings, with two of those meetings focused on the Big Bar slide, that the committee call witness including senior departmental officials, First Nations, and relevant stakeholder groups to testify before committee; that the committee report to the House; that the committee reintroduce all testimony and submissions on this subject from the First Session of the 43rd Parliament to be included and used for considering and drafting a report, and that all previous committee meetings on this subject be considered as meetings as a part of this study as outlined in this motion.”
Before I go to Mr. Bragdon, I notice that our friend, Mr. Kelloway, has left us. He's bought in another backup for Mr. Cormier. Mr. Simms, the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame is no stranger to this committee. When I first started this, he was the chair. He's off to a different committee now, but he takes great interest in the fishery since he represents such a fishing area in this province.
In regard to Mr. Hardie's motion—I take it that's the motion we're considering at this point—this may be incorporated into it. It could be considered a friendly amendment. I just want to put this on the table for consideration.
Motion number one is “that the committee request that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard appear before the committee for at least two hours to provide an update on the 2020–21 Main Estimates, 2020-21 Supplementary Estimates (A); and that in the invitation to the Minister, the Chair impart the urgency of the ongoing situation and request that the Minister appear before November 24, 2020.”
It's just a point of clarification. Let's assume that there was an amendment raised for the previous motion. Given the new context of the translation and the written text, could you or the clerk advise how we would proceed in that situation?
I will ask Ms. Gill whether I'm correct, but my understanding is that her motion is in relation to all studies pursuant to Standing Order 108(2).
Concerning the opinion of Ms. Gill, I would want to make sure that she clarifies whether this is also relevant to any amendment, because any amendment can for sure always be suggested without any notice.
Again, Mr. Chair, as I said before, if we were in a physical setting, I would talk to you on the side. Because it's difficult now, I would ask whether you would want to have any suggestions from me now or later.
The motion by Mr. Bragdon, which was provided in both official languages, has been voted on and passed unanimously. Mr. Beech raised the issue that an amendment can be introduced any time because nobody knows if they're going to make an amendment until they hear the motion. Hopefully, the interpreters will be able to interpret any amendment as it's being read out.
Mr. Chair, I have one more motion I can table as well: “That the following reports of this committee in the first session of the 42nd Parliament be adopted as reports in this session: report 23, 'Striped Bass in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence and Miramichi River: Striking a Delicate Balance'; report 25, 'Aquatic Invasive Species: A National Priority'; report 26, 'In Hot Water: Lobster and Snow Crab in Eastern Canada'; and that the chair present the reports to the House.”
I so move. It will be provided in both official languages and should be on its way to the clerk.
Yes. I just want to point out that you may remember that the committee already readopted these motions from 42-1 into 43-1. The reports were not presented to the House because of the situation with COVID. If you recall, we suggested that first with Standing Order 108(2) there is a provision for a dissenting opinion. Any member of the new parties or new membership can actually add a dissenting opinion. Pursuant to the standing order, the committee would have to agree on a specific date to permit dissenting opinions, if any, to the reports.
It could be done as part of the motion or as an appended motion next to this one.
I would like to read this in: “That the committee undertake a study to examine the fishery management measures put in place to protect North Atlantic right whales, in order to evaluate the impact these measures have had on the reduction of right whale deaths in Atlantic Canada and Quebec as well as the impact on the economy of coastal communities in these regions and to provide the government with options and recommendations to improve these measures; that the committee call witnesses including senior officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and interested stakeholder groups to testify before the committee; that the Chair be empowered to coordinate the necessary witnesses, resources and scheduling to complete this task; and that the committee report its conclusions and recommendations to the House of Commons.”
I have two motions I'd like to present. I'll do one at a time. I believe the translated versions are being shared with the clerk.
I will speak slowly for the interpreters as well.
The first motion is: “That the committee undertake a study examining the scope and effects of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU) on Canada's fisheries resources and the degradation of those resources caused by illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing;
That the committee receive witness testimony from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Minister of National Defence, officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Department of National Defence and Canadians impacted by IUU fishing;
That the committee allot no fewer than eight two-hour meetings to receive said testimony; that the committee also accept written briefs from individuals or organizations who wish to submit input; and
That the committee submit its findings with recommendations in a report to the House.”
Mr. Chair, I do not see the emails and the text of the motions from the office of Mr. Arnold, for now.
Perhaps I could take this time to address the members of the committee and give a reminder that it is much better to send emails to the FOPO and the committee inbox than it is to my personal inbox, in case I cannot access my emails.
That being said, I don't see the emails in either my inbox or the FOPO inbox.
Mr. Arnold, for now we'll take that as a notice of motion. Do you want to give another notice of motion? If they arrive before you're finished, we'll vote on them. If not, we won't discuss them or vote on them.
I'll move on to the other motion, and hopefully those translated versions will be arriving to the clerk shortly.
I would like to make a further motion regarding the public fishery in British Columbia, which contributes $1.1 billion to Canada's economy, the public fishery and 300,000 angling licence-holders and provides 9,000 jobs benefiting families, small communities and businesses connected to the public fisheries activities and tourism-related spending. Since 2016 the public fishery in British Columbia has been damaged by closures and restrictions.
The motion that I would like to make is: “That the committee undertake a study of the socio-economic impacts of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans’ decision to restrict recreational and commercial fishing for chinook salmon on the south coast of British Columbia over the past two years to fully understand the impact of this decision on small businesses and coastal communities; and as part of this study, the committee meet virtually with those impacted including recreational anglers, small businesses and indigenous and coastal communities that have and continue to be affected and are observing significant additional hardship in business for 2020 due to the reduction of opportunities in the public fishery; and as part of this study, the committee assess measures, including measures other than fisheries management, that could deliver increases in chinook salmon stocks while allowing for access and opportunity for harvesters and that the department give a full briefing on all public consultation that took place on the west coast with the affected fisheries; and that the committee submit its findings with recommendations in a report to the House.”
Is that on the illegal fishing? If so, I would like to add an amendment.
I would like to make it without prejudice to aboriginal and treaty rights, because while they're bringing these fisheries out, they haven't specifically stated whether that's what they have in mind. I don't think it's appropriate in terms of this kind of study to label them all together.
To make sure that I take the correct note and also so the members understand what the they are voting on, could Mr. Battiste suggest a full sentence and specify exactly where that amendment would be in the motion?
Mr. Chair, because of time, I'm concerned about waiting for another week to discuss Mr. Battiste's motion.
I urge the committee and you, Mr. Chair, to call an emergency meeting of this committee either tomorrow afternoon or Friday, so that we can get this discussion rolling, or at least have a chance to debate Mr. Battiste's motion. I'm wondering if you can check with the committee and see if everybody is open to that.
Your motion hasn't been presented in both official languages to each member of the committee, so it's not a motion we can accept right now.
We voted unanimously in favour of the motion that everything be presented in both official languages to all committee members. You can give notice of motion, but it will be a notice. It won't be voted on.
Indeed it is up to the chair to convene a meeting, so if the chair wants to convene a meeting he can certainly do so.
The only thing at this time, Mr. Chair, is you have to keep in mind that the committees do not yet have a schedule. The whips are debating and negotiating for schedules for all committees, so before you convene a meeting, it would be important for you to contact your whip to see what is possible. At this time, I as a clerk don't know what is possible this week. I know many committees will be electing chairs and organizing meetings. Other than that, you would have to make sure to follow up with your whip. Members, it's a good idea to follow up with your whips, because I believe an agreement should come soon but at this time I'm not aware of the different possibilities.
What would come of this? We would understand there have obviously been some social and economic impacts. Determining what those are would do what? What would be an actionable move out of a study like this?
I believe the committee can hear from many witnesses on this as to potential solutions for the people and communities that have been impacted so significantly by this.
There are other options out there for creating more recreational and commercial opportunity on the west coast, and I certainly believe this committee could hear those options and make recommendations to the House.
Mr. Chair, I'm wondering if that approach could be incorporated into the motion, so that the purpose of the study would be to look at ways of mitigating the impact of the closures and examine the options that are available to mitigate the impact.
Could I recommend a friendly motion to amend to that effect?
[that] as part of [the] study, the committee assess measures, including measures other than fisheries management, that could deliver increases in chinook salmon stocks while allowing for access and opportunity for harvesters.
That the department will give a full briefing on [the] public consultations that took place on the West Coast with affected fishers.
So it's captured in the portion where it says “including measures other than fisheries management that could deliver increases in chinook salmon stock”.
I have another brief motion, which has already been sent to all the committee members. It concerns a completely different topic.
That the Clerk be asked to review options to allow each Committee member to be accompanied by a staff member directly on the Zoom platform; that she be asked to identify the regulatory, budgetary and technological constraints to this authorization; and that she provide the Committee with the results of her analysis prior to the next meeting.
If she can't provide the committee with these results prior to the next meeting, we can amend the motion.
Madam Gill, before we try formulating at the end, we've just gone past our two-hour time slot that was allocated for the meeting. To go on any further, I would need unanimous consent of the committee to continue.
I don't know yet if the table staff and the clerk are prepared to go any further. I would ask them, if there is anything wrong with continuing, to let us know.
We do not have unanimous consent to continue on, so I think we'll close off here. I thank everyone for their participation today, including the clerk, the table staff and the interpreters, of course.
I have a couple of reminders for people before you leave. One is that when you're not speaking, please put your system on mute. I know I'm guilty of it as well, as are others. As well, please try to speak slowly and clearly when you're reading out a motion or statement so the interpreters can try to keep up. Again, we know we have to have everything in both official languages from now on. There will be no excuses.
No, the call of the chair to adjourn is considered implied consent technically, so usually we go with the implied consent that the members are done with the meeting, unless the debate has already started. If some members want to keep the debate going, the chair should not interrupt the debate. What usually goes on is that the members are willing to adjourn the meeting, and that's when the chair calls for the implied consent of the members to adjourn.
I think some on the committee were saying no and some were obviously saying yes. Should we get a vote on it to see? I don't remember who said no for unanimous consent and I don't remember who said yes. I think the only way we can find that out is to go to a vote.