wildmanyeah
Crew Member
The way this reads is that the goverment is suppose to do socio-economic impact study anytime they make changes to regulations. Does area and time closures fall under that?? Or are they referring to changes in law such as the Fisheries act, Anytime parliament changes the act they need to do a social-economic study? If the later is the case then I would say the SRKW changes they would've needed to do one but not necessarily the Chinook area and time closures for early run chinook. Seems it may be up for some interpretation.
"Regulation
A rule of order having the force of law, prescribed by a superior or competent authority, relating to the actions of those underthe authority's control."
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/FOPO/meeting-147/evidence
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
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.C-68 is government legislation, although it's being amended in the Senate, but Bill S-238 is a private member's bill. Does the department do a socio-economic impact assessment as a matter of process any time a piece of legislation is put before the House that would affect any of the fisheries or anybody in the jurisdiction of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans? If so, was one done for Bill S-238?
Mr. Paul Gillis:
It's a private member's bill, so no. Typically there is not a socio-economic impact assessment.
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
If it's something that's driven by the government—for example, the recent changes to chinook fisheries on the west coast—was a socio-economic impact assessment done for that?
Mr. Paul Gillis:
Yes, socio-economic impacts would be done on other regulations.
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
They would be done on other changes.
Mr. Paul Gillis:
They would be done on regulations that are introduced, yes.
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
All right. Thank you.The Chair: Okay, you've heard the motion.Mr. Blaine Calkins: I'm of the opinion, or have been told, that there are printing issues and that we can't get paper copies.
Mr. Colin Fraser:
Just so I understand, my understanding—and I could be wrong—is that to move a motion, it would have to be related to the topic that we are here to discuss today. Otherwise it could be considered a notice of that motion, which requires 48 hours' notice. Am I correct?Mr. Blaine Calkins: No, I'm actually moving the motion, because we're talking about fisheries and socio-economic impacts of fisheries. My motion is specifically about socio-economic impacts, and I'm hoping that it will be accepted by the chair.
Mr. Colin Fraser:
I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that the motion is outside the scope of Bill S-238 for today. Therefore, I would suggest that it be considered a notice of that motion, which requires 48 hours.
The Chair:
It is outside of Bill S-238, but it did come up in conversation with the witnesses.
Mr. Colin Fraser:
Was that on chinook salmon?
The Chair:
It was the socio-economic impact of....
Mr. Colin Fraser:
We're here to talk about shark finning, Mr. Chair, and he's talking about looking into chinook salmon.
Mr. Fin Donnelly:
On a point of order, Mr. Fraser has asked for a ruling, so I think, Chair, that you need to give a ruling.
The Chair:
I'll allow the motion to stand. We'll vote on it, unless there's further discussion.Mr. Colin Fraser: Before we vote on the substance of the motion, I will say that we have an awful lot on our plate between now and when this session ends in a couple of weeks' time. The motion is asking for travel. It would be extremely difficult for staff of the committee to arrange that travel and for all of us to put aside everything else that this committee has already endeavoured to undertake between now and the end of the session. I don't think it is realistic at all for that to happen in the time frame we have.The Chair: Thank you for that, Mr. Fraser.
Is there any other discussion?
(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
Go ahead, Mr. Calkins.
Mr. Blaine Calkins: Thanks, Chair. Am I out of time?
The Chair: You're way out of time.
Mr. Blaine Calkins: Well, I might be. Thank you, Chair.
The Chair: Mr. Rogers, you were on the list. Are you still going to ask questions, or did you get it done?
You're saying you're done.
"Regulation
A rule of order having the force of law, prescribed by a superior or competent authority, relating to the actions of those underthe authority's control."
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/FOPO/meeting-147/evidence
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
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.C-68 is government legislation, although it's being amended in the Senate, but Bill S-238 is a private member's bill. Does the department do a socio-economic impact assessment as a matter of process any time a piece of legislation is put before the House that would affect any of the fisheries or anybody in the jurisdiction of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans? If so, was one done for Bill S-238?
Mr. Paul Gillis:
It's a private member's bill, so no. Typically there is not a socio-economic impact assessment.
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
If it's something that's driven by the government—for example, the recent changes to chinook fisheries on the west coast—was a socio-economic impact assessment done for that?
Mr. Paul Gillis:
Yes, socio-economic impacts would be done on other regulations.
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
They would be done on other changes.
Mr. Paul Gillis:
They would be done on regulations that are introduced, yes.
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
All right. Thank you.The Chair: Okay, you've heard the motion.Mr. Blaine Calkins: I'm of the opinion, or have been told, that there are printing issues and that we can't get paper copies.
Mr. Colin Fraser:
Just so I understand, my understanding—and I could be wrong—is that to move a motion, it would have to be related to the topic that we are here to discuss today. Otherwise it could be considered a notice of that motion, which requires 48 hours' notice. Am I correct?Mr. Blaine Calkins: No, I'm actually moving the motion, because we're talking about fisheries and socio-economic impacts of fisheries. My motion is specifically about socio-economic impacts, and I'm hoping that it will be accepted by the chair.
Mr. Colin Fraser:
I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that the motion is outside the scope of Bill S-238 for today. Therefore, I would suggest that it be considered a notice of that motion, which requires 48 hours.
The Chair:
It is outside of Bill S-238, but it did come up in conversation with the witnesses.
Mr. Colin Fraser:
Was that on chinook salmon?
The Chair:
It was the socio-economic impact of....
Mr. Colin Fraser:
We're here to talk about shark finning, Mr. Chair, and he's talking about looking into chinook salmon.
Mr. Fin Donnelly:
On a point of order, Mr. Fraser has asked for a ruling, so I think, Chair, that you need to give a ruling.
The Chair:
I'll allow the motion to stand. We'll vote on it, unless there's further discussion.Mr. Colin Fraser: Before we vote on the substance of the motion, I will say that we have an awful lot on our plate between now and when this session ends in a couple of weeks' time. The motion is asking for travel. It would be extremely difficult for staff of the committee to arrange that travel and for all of us to put aside everything else that this committee has already endeavoured to undertake between now and the end of the session. I don't think it is realistic at all for that to happen in the time frame we have.The Chair: Thank you for that, Mr. Fraser.
Is there any other discussion?
(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
Go ahead, Mr. Calkins.
Mr. Blaine Calkins: Thanks, Chair. Am I out of time?
The Chair: You're way out of time.
Mr. Blaine Calkins: Well, I might be. Thank you, Chair.
The Chair: Mr. Rogers, you were on the list. Are you still going to ask questions, or did you get it done?
You're saying you're done.
