I now call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 10 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, October 19, 2020, the committee is resuming its study of the implementation of Mi'kmaq treaty fishing rights to support a moderate livelihood.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of September 23, 2020. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. So you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee. To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules to follow.
Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of “floor”, “English” or “French”. For members participating in person, proceed as you usually would when the whole committee is in meeting in person in a committee room. Keep in mind the directives from the Board of Internal Economy regarding masking and health protocols.
Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. Those in the room, your microphone will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer. I will remind you that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute. With regard to a speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members, whether they are participating virtually or in person.
I would now like to welcome our witnesses.
Today we have, from the Coldwater Lobster Association, President Bernie Berry. As an individual, we have Mr. Richard Williams, and as an individual, we have Alan Clarke, retired enforcement officer with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
We'll now proceed to remarks.
For five minutes or less, Mr. Berry you can go first.
Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
My name is Bernie Berry. I am president of the Coldwater Lobster Association. Our association was established five years ago and we represent approximately 200 members. Our membership is comprised of fishermen from Lobster Fishing Area 34, the largest LFA in eastern Canada, which encompasses an area of 8,500 square kilometres with 975 licences, the most licences in any LFA, and the largest landings per year at approximately 45 million to 47 million pounds per season.
The issue before us today has created great strife within our communities for over 21 years with little to no progress. A moderate livelihood fishery will have implications for first nations fishermen, commercial fishermen and all coastal communities that rely on the fishery for their economic survival.
The implementation process of a moderate livelihood fishery must be determined through open dialogue with all affected parties. The most critical reason for this matter of a moderate livelihood fishery not moving forward has been a lack of transparency in the negotiating process. The Crown has not carried out consistent or meaningful talks with either first nations or industry over the years.
Industry has been excluded from the most crucial conversations when they concerned a transfer of access to the fishery and how that is going to be achieved without harming the industry. The industry must be included in the talks because it has had a long dependence on these resources for the success of not only its own businesses but its communities' economic well-being as well.
The nation-to-nation negotiation model has not wielded any lasting success when it pertains to integrating first nations into the fishing industry through a moderate livelihood fishery. Continued exclusion of the fishing industry from these talks will not help to achieve a positive outcome in these discussions.
All parties must have their concerns fully vetted to have any chance of a lasting agreement among all involved. This process must recognize that there can only be one regulator and one set of rules for all. We cannot entertain any thought of having multiple regulatory regimes. If there are multiple regulators for one fishery it will only lead to confusion, non-compliance, lack of science, lack of enforcement, etc. It simply will not work.
In early September, Nanos Research was commissioned by Maritime and Quebec fishing associations to conduct a Canadian public opinion poll asking about how the fishery should be managed. In early November, Nanos Research was commissioned again to conduct a poll of Canadians, this time by The Globe and Mail and CTV, which included several questions from the earlier poll. One question in particular that was included in both surveys indicated that an overwhelming percentage of Canadians, 75%, believe there should be only one regulator and one set of rules laid out by the Government of Canada.
Adjacency must be a major component of any discussions pertaining to a moderate livelihood also. First nations have traditional territories that they have hunted and fished. First nations cannot simply choose where they want to fish. Traditional grounds, areas and territories must be established and adhered to by first nations.
Two first nations bands located in southwest Nova Scotia, namely Acadia First Nation and Bear River First Nation, have expressed major concerns about the infringement on their traditional grounds by outside first nations bands in Nova Scotia. The adjacency concern must be addressed in order to ensure there is no undue pressure on particular stocks in localized areas.
Since 1999, almost $600 million has been allocated to buy first nations access into the commercial fishery. Today another process is under way to negotiate a moderate livelihood fishery that will cost the Crown hundreds of millions of additional dollars. Industry believes the Crown has fulfilled its fiduciary responsibility concern in the Marshall decision.
The Marshall initiative, along with other government programs and the ingenuity of first nations, has created an economic success story within Atlantic Canada first nations. This success was documented in a recent Macdonald-Laurier Institute report, which showed the total on-reserve fishing revenue for Mi'kmaq and Maliseet in Nova Scotia province grew from $3 million in 1999 to $152 million in 2016. This number is expected to be much higher today.
The report evaluated the overall impact of the Marshall decision and highlighted impressive first nations fishing fleets, the dramatic increase in indigenous workers in the sector and the substantial financial benefits flowing to these communities.
It also documented the growth of onshore processing plants and related value-added businesses.
Following the 1999 Marshall decision, indigenous and non-indigenous fishermen have fished side by side in numerous fisheries. There is no difference between the two parties on the water in the commercial season. Collectively it is fishermen trying to do their best for their families and their communities.
The ultimate goal of any negotiation is to ensure that differences are put aside, but ultimately, equality and respect must prevail.
This is not the first time that I have addressed the fisheries standing committee on this issue. I joined DFO as a fishery officer in July 1979, and I retired in September 2014. I spent 35 years as a fishery officer, and of those 35 years, 25 were as the area chief of enforcement for the southwest Nova Scotia area of the Scotia Fundy, now Maritimes region.
I managed compliance, monitoring, conservation and protection and enforcement through the 1990 Supreme Court Sparrow decision on the food, social and ceremonial, FSC, rites and through the September 1999 Supreme Court of Canada Marshall moderate livelihood decision and the Supreme Court's subsequent November 1999 clarification.
For the sake of full disclosure and transparency, I also want to advise the committee that I have not now nor had at any time in the past any affiliation with any commercial fishery or any organization involving lobsters or any other fishery, for that matter.
I also have no connection with any political party. I served under 10 Liberal and seven Conservative DFO ministers, and three Liberal and three Conservative prime ministers. Through my 35-year tenure with DFO enforcement, I have always conducted myself and our C and P programs in a non-partisan way, our only objective being efficient and productive fisheries management in all fisheries. This included proactive compliance, monitoring and enforcement to ensure the long-term sustainability of all fisheries for the future benefit of all Canadians.
As you are aware, following the Marshall decision, the fisheries standing committee of the day held extensive hearings surrounding the department's implementation of the Marshall decision. During those hearings and discussions, I was interviewed by Mr. Wayne Easter, who was then chair of the fisheries standing committee. The standing committee was seeking first-hand knowledge of the fisheries management and the enforcement concerns and problems we were experiencing in the field in southwest Nova Scotia.
We identified several key enforcement issues that were having a deleterious effect on our fishery officers' ability to deal effectively and proactively with the increased non-compliance that was occurring during the closed lobster fishing season.
We also offered several essential recommendations to enhance conservation through proper management and enforcement in this fishery. They included that effective enforcement was critical to conservation. DFO must rigorously enforce fisheries' regulations with impartiality. DFO must have a sufficient number of enforcement officers, and those officers must be provided with the budgets and equipment to do the job safely and effectively. DFO must enforce one set of rules and regulations for everyone, and it must have the resources and personnel to do the job.
Commercial fisheries for both indigenous and non-indigenous fishers must be conducted under one set of rules and regulations, including seasons. The lobster fishery in particular must be managed in such a way as to ensure that it is being conducted as a genuine food fishery and not an illegal commercial fishery. There must be an examination of the question of whether the lobster food fishery should be conducted during the same season as the regular commercial fishery.
We felt very strongly in 1999 that we had made the appropriate recommendations to the then fisheries standing committee. I feel even more staunchly about them now in 2020.
I would further recommend that the standing committee consult with and listen to their fishery officers to confirm that any recommendations from 1999 or now are still appropriate and comprehensive.
I am a firm believer in the statement that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. In my view there is no need to try to reinvent the wheel.
I would be pleased to address any questions that you may have.
My thanks to the committee and to Jaime Battiste for the opportunity to talk with you today.
I appear in my capacity as research director for the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters, the national human resources sector council for the fish-harvesting industry in Canada. Our members include harvester organizations across Canada with indigenous representation on both coasts.
I will begin by sharing three of the most significant findings from our recently completed national study of labour supply trends in the Canadian harvesting industry.
First, the fishing industry today is seeing sustainable growth with potential to drive social and economic development in rural coastal communities and first nations. With improving stock management and conservation, the supply of wild-caught seafood is increasingly limited, while global demand is growing almost exponentially. In this situation, seafood product values have nowhere to go but up over the foreseeable future.
Second, the most serious barrier to continuing industry growth may be labour supply. A third of the current workforce will age out of the industry by 2025, and with shrinking rural populations, we currently have too few new entrants to replace them. As we have already seen in fish processing, critical labour shortages may soon be common on the harvesting side.
Third, indigenous employment in the fishery grew from 1,400 individuals in 2001 to 3,400 in 2016, an increase of 142%. Indigenous harvesters made up 13% of the total fishing labour force in Nova Scotia in 2016, and 18% in New Brunswick. Those figures will have increased since then.
Taking all these factors into account, it’s clear that there are real opportunities for first nations to achieve greater economic and social development through expanded engagement in fisheries.
How best to pursue this opportunity? One path is to continue the incremental growth of the past two decades and find ways to accelerate it through new collaborations with government and other industry stakeholders, or first nations may undertake to create new and distinct fisheries with perhaps multiple management systems and licensing regimes, or some combination of the two. Whatever pathways, there will be impact on non-native harvesters and their communities. I will share with you what I understand to be the predominant views taking shape among the harvester leaders I work with across the Atlantic and Quebec.
These leaders understand and acknowledge that 300 years of systemic racism unjustly separated indigenous peoples from their traditional territories and fisheries, and that racism is evident today in recent violent action. They recognize the constitutional rights and the simple human rights of indigenous peoples to have full and fair access to fisheries for food, social and ceremonial purposes; to earn rewarding livelihoods; and to build self-reliant communities. They recognize and accept that the moderate livelihood right set out by the Marshall decision is to be negotiated between the Crown and first nations on a government-to-government basis, and that they are not party to these negotiations.
Finally, they share with indigenous leaders and harvesters a commitment to conserving fish stocks and habitat and to conducting fisheries on a sustainable basis to ensure employment, incomes, and social and cultural well-being for future generations.
In my view, these points of emerging consensus provide a constructive basis for dialogue and future collaboration with first nations fisheries leaders and government agencies on moving forward with the development of indigenous fisheries. If and when that begins, harvester leaders in the commercial fishery will bring forward certain concerns, as you've heard, about process and implementation steps.
First, it is in no one’s interest that there be conflict in communities and on the water, with international media attention focused on violent incidents. Harvester leaders deal every day with pressures from their grassroots members who are reacting anxiously to rumours and aggressive posturing by non-indigenous and indigenous actors, particularly on social media. There is a critical need for calmer voices to be heard and for leaders in government, first nations and commercial fisheries organizations to provide clearer information on policy objectives, pathways and timetables.
Second, after a two-decade struggle to get the fleet separation and owner-operator policies enshrined in legislation and regulations, commercial harvesters hope to see first nations fisheries develop in ways that help retain fair shares of the wealth of the fishery in the hands of working harvesters and their communities, both indigenous and non-indigenous.
Third, non-native fish harvesters need to have a voice and a role in the process. It will help a great deal to relieve current pressures if government establishes a formal consultation table linked to and informing government-to-government negotiations with first nations.
As you've heard, the issue of seasons is critical and will have to be dealt with as well.
Today, first nations communities are pushing for their rightful place in the fishery. It may take longer than some might hope, but I believe conditions are taking shape to achieve this. It is an inescapable reality that success will require indigenous and non-indigenous harvesters to work together to steward common resources, manage adjacent fisheries and meet the demands of the same markets.
As a practical step in this direction—
Thank you, Mr. Williams. We've gone over time and I have to get to the questioning.
Before I get to the questioning round, I just want to let the members know that we'll have to carve off the last half hour for future committee business, namely the next meeting and beyond. I'm going to have to be very strict on the time allocated for questions and when it ends, because I don't want to punish anybody on the sheet by not getting to them.
We'll start off with Mr. Bragdon, for six minutes or less.
As well, to the questioners, please, if you can, identify who you would like to answer the question instead of leaving it just hanging out there for someone to volunteer to answer. It makes it much easier and goes much more quickly.
I was very concerned by the September 17 comments by the minister in which she indicated that unauthorized fishing during the closed season would not be allowed during negotiations. Either she or perhaps the PMO decided that they were going to change that strategy, but that started the chain of events of creating uncertainty, fear and confusion that, in my view, led to the civil unrest that took place.
In no way do I condone civil unrest. I spent 35 years trying to ensure that civil unrest did not take place in the fisheries, and I certainly wouldn't condone it now, but I can understand the frustration and the terrible communication, as I would call it. I wouldn't call it bad communication; I would have to call it no communication. The minister and her department, and the Prime Minister's Office, for that matter, have had terrible public relations and communications around this issue since September 17, and in my opinion, that has created and contributed to the confusion and the frustration that spills over sometimes in civil unrest.
I was involved in civil unrest when we had 200 or 300 lobster vessels blockade the Yarmouth ferry at the Yarmouth wharf. I've had office occupations; I've had protests and demonstrations. I've seen the riot team, the RCMP riot squad, marching down Main Street in Yarmouth, beating on their shields trying to clear protesters. Therefore, I know what civil unrest can do and I'm afraid that the minister contributed with her poor communication, helping to create that civil unrest.
If I could I would like to expand on Mr. Clarke's earlier point about the things that happened this summer and the reason they got out of hand.
It wasn't simply that DFO stopped doing its due diligence this summer. Over years, if not decades, it has just slowly and surely pulled back and almost simply abdicated its role and responsibilities of enforcing the rules that are on the books. This is something that has been building, not just since this summer. This has been a long time coming.
The other thing is that the minister is the only one who can issue licences and the one who has to maintain order. Seasons are there for a reason. I hate to use that, but they are for conservation and stuff like that. The minister, and only the minister, has the full authority to issue licences.
This actually really started to happen right after Marshall when especially the out-of-season FSC fishery was being developed, even though the FSC fishery pertained to Sparrow.
In the early 2000s, as today, every year licences had to be negotiated between DFO and first nations to see how much product was going to be removed in a particular summer for food, social and ceremonial. Over time, DFO either negotiated away....
At first, early in the 2000s, they were doing some checks and balances, and they had a handle on what was being removed, but over time slowly their input into what was happening, and their control of what was happening out of season were slipping through their fingers. Whether this was through negotiation...they were ceding more responsibility to other folks, and it wasn't working, and it just kept building and building. Actually, I think DFO simply lost control, and that's why we're here today.
From my understanding, it has resulted in two things. One is that over the last few years, the number of food fish traps that are authorized had been increasing to what I'm hearing is a stage when the quantity of traps being issued are reaching commercial quantities. When you're catching commercial quantities, that increases the incentive to sell commercial quantities illegally.
What happens is not so much the indigenous fishermen, but that the non-indigenous lobster poachers and the unscrupulous lobster buyers are conducting their illegal activities under the guise of a legitimate food fishery. The more people who get away with it....
Non-compliance is broken down into three levels. There are some people who will never break the regulation, some people who will always break them, and the 60% in between who will go one way or the other, depending on what the deterrent is. If there's no deterrent and if people aren't getting caught and prosecuted, then those groups are going to go into non-compliance. That's what is taking place in southwest Nova Scotia—
I would like to thank the witnesses Mr. Berry, Mr. Williams and Mr. Clarke for agreeing to testify.
First, I have a question for Mr. Clarke. I think it's worthwhile to get a fishery officer's point of view.
Mr. Clarke, you have notably been an officer for 35 years. You mentioned earlier enforcement of regulations and lack of resources, equipment and budget. I know that is a lot. You seem to be suggesting that these factors are obviously having an impact on the current situation.
If you had any recommendations and requests to make about this, what would they be?
I will go faster.
Mr. Clarke, it would be worthwhile to hear your point of view, because you have 35 years of experience as a fishery officer. Your testimony has shed new light on the situation.
One of the things you mentioned was that the enforcement of regulations, and availability of resources, equipment and budget are problematic for fishery officers. That echoes what Mr. Berry also said a little earlier.
To improve this type of situation, what recommendations would you make in terms of regulations, resources, equipment and the budget allocated to fishery officers?
Yes, I understand your question very well.
The difficulty I have is that I haven't been involved directly with DFO in enforcement for five or six years now, so I'm not sure of the present situation. I was involved in a process at the time called C and P renewal, which introduced another level of supervision into the fishery officer training and command.
It was working effectively, but I hear that because of budget cuts some of that has now been rolled back. I've heard of situations in the last couple of years where fishery officers have had to park their vehicles because they had no gas to put in their vehicles. I've heard that they have positions that are acting, with no incumbents in the position. I think it has to be looked at again in terms of what was done with C and P renewal to see how much of this has eroded.
I worked very closely with this when former prime ministers Chrétien and Martin were involved, but I'm afraid, from what I'm hearing from the field staff, that since the Harper government, there have been cuts not only to science but to enforcement that are contributing to some of the problems we're seeing today.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for your really important testimony today.
Back in December 1999, this committee presented a report on the Marshall decision and its implications for the management of the Atlantic fisheries. The report found that DFO was caught off guard and didn't have a contingency plan, knowing that the Mi'kmaq fishers would be on the water and threatened by commercial fishers.
Here we are in 2020 and the Mi'kmaq fishers have been threatened and intimidated, traps have been cut and a building has been burned down. In the last 21 years, do you get the impression that DFO has developed a plan to keep the Mi'kmaq fishers safe when they're on the water, or do you feel that DFO has been caught off guard again?
Maybe I'll start with you, Mr. Clarke, because you talked about DFO staff not even having gas in their tanks and about the cuts. Do you feel they're adequately resourced to protect those fishers from their boats being rammed and from the confrontation that's taking place on the water when they're exercising their treaty and constitutionally protected right?
I think there are two particular issues with the problem.
First of all, I wouldn't even try to comment on present-day realities, but I've heard from some of my colleagues who are still with the department. That's why I recommended that the standing committee should listen to them, in the field, today, and not look for advice from a has-been who was there 20 years ago, talking about what problems I had.
I've talked to the officers now and there's a lot of frustration within the field staff. I've talked to one recent supervisor, you probably have heard of him, Gary Hutchins from Meteghan, the area that included the complex in St. Marys Bay. He took early retirement because he and his staff were told through the chain of command to stand down their enforcement activities in St. Marys Bay after the minister made her announcement on September 17. I think it would be appropriate for this committee to talk to fishery officers in the field now, and I mean in the field. I don't mean the director general in Ottawa, or the regional director in Halifax. They're part of the problem, in my opinion.
When I was in fisheries, the chain of command was very clear. You had to progress from a fishery officer to a supervisor to a detachment supervisor to an area chief to a regional director and then to the director general of C & P.
I really appreciate that.
Mr. Williams, I really appreciate that you talked about the economic benefits. The Sipekne’katik we know is the second-largest Mi'kmaq community in Nova Scotia and the community has been affected by centralization, oppression under the Indian Act, and the intergenerational effects of the residential schools. Basically, given these colonial oppressions that have kept their people from entering the middle-class society in Canada, do you support that they must determine themselves what a moderate livelihood is?
And Mr. Williams, I do appreciate that you did speak clearly about the economic benefit and the growth in terms of indigenous participation in the fishery. Can you also speak about what that economic impact has been also on the communities where they live?
It's going to take a while. It has taken 21 years to this point to get first nations involved in the commercial fishery through the Marshall initiative and some other programs.
Moving forward, I think the first nations will get more access, but there are a couple of nuances there. There can only be one regulator here.
What you pointed out earlier about St. Marys Bay and the Shubenacadie band.... That fishery is not recognized. The DFO—the minister—did not issue those licences. This is not an authorized fishery as of yet. There have to be negotiations ongoing to determine what that type of fishery looks like.
I can't see how you can have, in this case, two regulators. Other first nations want to regulate their own fishery also. That simply isn't going to work, because you have 35 first nations in Atlantic Canada. Everybody's going to want at some point to regulate their own fishery.
That's not going to work. You must have one regulator and one set of regulations concerning conservation and stuff like that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a couple of questions. I think I'll start with Mr. Williams.
You gave some of these figures on the growth of indigenous fisheries, and alluded to it as well by talking about how the landings have grown from the Marshall decision to today from about $3 million to $120 million. We see, then, increased activity, which obviously would bring about increased economic opportunity and some level of prosperity.
You mentioned that there would be an impact upon the non-indigenous fishing community and fishing families from the changes that are being contemplated.
Could you talk to us about what you think some of those impacts are going to be? I think you were suggesting they would not all be positive.
Fisheries management today, within a conservation regime, is a zero-sum game. If new entrants come into the industry or new fishing effort is brought into the industry, then effort has to be taken out—and maybe people are going to have to be taken out—somewhere else.
Much of the anxiety and the reaction we are seeing happening at the community level right now is because there is no clear direction on that; there's no clear policy or understanding of how this is going to be managed. If we're going to maintain conservation and bring a whole new set of actors into the industry, what is the process for it to take place?
In 1999, in the initial Marshall process, the process was that licences were purchased from retiring harvesters and transferred into first nations communities. People thus understood, as things settled out, how it was going to happen and that the net effect was going to be neutral or beneficial.
In the current environment there is no clear direction or understanding. There's a great deal of rumour and concern about an aggressively expanding new fishery, and no understanding at all about how it's going to take place without severe impacts upon people who are caught in the backlash from it.
That's the lack of current policy and direction that I think needs to be addressed as a priority.
I can only speak to my own situation prior to my retirement.
At the time we completed something that was called the integrated fisheries management plan that included conservation, protection and enforcement as part of the model. It was run primarily by the areas.
Just to give you some of my own experience, I had disagreements in the past from some of my masters at regional headquarters who had a different idea of how enforcement should have been conducted. At one time I said to them, “If you don't agree with what we're doing, please put it in writing. I want your direction in writing. Unless I get it in writing, I'm going to continue to do what I'm doing", but I never received it in writing.
If I had received something that I disagreed with or thought was illegal or immoral, I would have resigned, and I would have made it widely known why I was resigning.
No, Mr. Johns, we don't. I have to get this information done and looked after during this committee meeting. We are not permitted to go overtime today because of the other committees.
I will say thank you to our witnesses for enlightening us with their knowledge here this evening.
We'll let them leave the meeting now while we go into committee business. I won't be suspending.
I have just a couple of things for the upcoming meetings that we need discuss. First off, I will say that, as everybody knows, Monday, November 30 is our normal committee meeting, but it falls into the timeline that's up against the fall economic statement by the .
Some members have mentioned to me that they would like to be able to attend it, be a part of it or watch it. If we do that, it's right in our committee time. We have to decide to either go ahead with the committee on Monday, November 30 or to just cancel that meeting. I'm open to suggestions. I'll go with whatever the majority suggests we should do.
Are there any comments?
In the restarting of the Pacific salmon, we need to establish how many more meetings we need to have with witnesses. Of course as I mentioned two days ago, the House calendar ends on December 11 with regard to our committee. That leaves us Monday's meeting, which is November 30. We then have Wednesday, December 2; Monday, December 7 and Wednesday, December 9. We actually have four meetings.
We need to know if we want one more full meeting to finish up the witnesses on the moderate livelihood. We put one more meeting towards that, so we'll do that on Monday, November 30 if we can get witnesses to agree to come.
Then we have three meetings left. Are we going to do our drafting instructions for the moderate livelihood study, or will we just go into salmon for the last three meetings?
Seeing no comment, I guess we'll leave it up to the chair to decide and notify you accordingly as to what we'll do.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: I see people actually nodding to that, and thumbs up. Okay. I'm in charge. That's wonderful.
I'll discuss that with the clerk.
As well, if we're going to start the Pacific salmon study, we need to set a deadline for witnesses for that particular study. I believe Nancy has issued an outline of witnesses and whatnot for the Pacific salmon Big Bar study. Does everybody have their copy of that?
We have to know when to start. If we wait until Monday, December 7, that means that on Wednesday, December 2 we could deal with clearing up the drafting instructions.
No? Okay. Then we will start that on the Monday.
All right. We'll start with witnesses for Wednesday, December 2, so we need a very quick deadline in order to get those witnesses presented to the clerk. What if I say 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on Friday this week, November 27? Is everybody okay with finishing up with the witnesses for the Pacific salmon on Friday, November 27?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Other than that, is there any other business anybody wants to raise? I didn't think this was going to go as quickly and as smoothly.
Thank you, Madame Gill.
We've all heard the motion. Is there any discussion? Not seeing any, Nancy will call for the vote.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Chair: Thank you, Nancy. It was passed unanimously. That's excellent.
Again, Monday is the last meeting on moderate livelihood and hopefully we'll have time at the end of the meeting to do drafting instructions. The next three meetings, December 2, December 7 and December 9, we'll dedicate to Pacific salmon. Maybe on the Wednesday, December 9, we might also have an opportunity to do drafting instructions for that study to give the clerk something to do over the Christmas recess, I guess you'd call it. I'm sure that's just what they're looking forward to.
Is there other new business? Hearing none, I call this meeting adjourned.
Thank you, everyone.