Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[IronNoggin]

   

    MAY 28, 2019
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    OTTAWA, ON - Liberal Members of Parliament unanimously voted against a proposed study of socio-economic impacts resulting from the latest round of chinook salmon harvest closures announced by the federal government.

    The study motion was presented at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans by Conservative Blaine Calkins, MP for Red Deer-Lacombe, and was supported by all opposition members. Unfortunately, the Liberal majority on the committee, including British Columbia MP Ken Hardie (Fleetwood-Port Kells), rejected the proposed study.

    “Government decisions have a major impact on the lives and livelihoods of Canadians, and the latest round of Pacific salmon closures has already impacted coastal communities and businesses that depend on fisheries,” said MP Calkins following the committee meeting. “As disappointing as it was to see the proposed study defeated by the Liberal committee members, my Conservative colleagues and I will continue to work with people in B.C. directly impacted by another round of reductions and closures.”

    The latest rounds of fishing closures and reductions were announced in April by Liberal Fisheries Minister and B.C. MP Jonathan Wilkinson.

    “Of course, we see politics in Ottawa, but this was pretty callous,” said Mel Arnold, MP for North Okanagan-Shuswap. “The proposed study would have focused on the impacts being felt by the 8,000 British Columbians who work in and around our public fishery. Apparently, the Trudeau Liberals don’t want anyone asking them questions or hearing what they’re experiencing.”

    British Columbia’s public fishery is a world-famous destination for sport fishing and contributes $1.1 billion to the Canadian economy every year. Some 300,000 annual license holders who depend on BC’s public fishery for recreational and subsistence fishing are impacted by the latest closures, as are numerous businesses in the fishing, tourism, transportation, retail and accommodation sectors.

    The proposed study motion noted that “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.” The proposal also sought an assessment of “other measures that could deliver increases in chinook salmon stocks.”

    “After years of mismanagement and stone-walling grassroots efforts to restore wild Pacific salmon stocks, this government dealt another blow to Pacific salmon fisheries and the people who depend on them to put food on their family’s tables,” said MP Todd Doherty who represents Cariboo-Prince George. “The Liberals stopped this study because they have the numbers at committee, but I am from B.C. and I know the determination of British Columbians. We will keep fighting to restore salmon stocks and restore access to the public fishery.”

    Proposed Study Motion

    Whereas:
    -the public fishery in British Columbia contributes $1.1 billion to Canada’s economy; and
    -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
    -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,

    Mr. Calkins moves 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.

    Vote Results

    In Favour

    MP Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer-Lacombe, AB
    MP Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo-Prince George, BC
    MP Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan-Shuswap, BC
    MP Fin Donnelly, New Democratic, Port Moody-Coquitlam, BC

    Opposed

    MP Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood-Port Kells, BC
    MP Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS
    MP Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista-Burin-Trinity, NFL
    MP Robert J. Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PEI
    MP Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy-Royal, NB

    For more information:
    Office of Todd Doherty, MP
    [P] 613-995-6704 [E] Todd.Doherty.A1@Parl.gc.ca
     

[Damien]

How we continue to politicize salmon is beyond me.

Shame on Ken Hardie in particular.  But he was probably pressured by his affiliation.  Would his vote had been enough to sway the decision, ie, would majority carry or did they need a certain %?

[IronNoggin]

...  Would his vote had been enough to sway the decision, ie, would majority carry or did they need a certain %?

Had he voted in favor, the motion would have carried.
He cast the deciding vote - AGAINST BC.   

Nog

[IronNoggin]

For those on Facebook, this BC MP cast the deciding vote AGAINST BC:

https://www.facebook.com/KenHardieMP/

And is now trying to spin that as a "partisan stunt by the Conservatives".

UnReal...
Nog

[RalphH]

  Would his vote had been enough to sway the decision, ie, would majority carry or did they need a certain %?

almost everything that is voted on in Parliament is determined by a majority vote. The vote is always 'yeah' or 'nay' on a motion introduced by a member. Parties 'whip' their members to vote in line with the party policy. This is true for all 3 parties. 

[skaha]

almost everything that is voted on in Parliament is determined by a majority vote. The vote is always 'yeah' or 'nay' on a motion introduced by a member. Parties 'whip' their members to vote in line with the party policy. This is true for all 3 parties.

--Which is why we need to change from the current Party system to allow for more "free" votes and Consensus decisions.

[IronNoggin]

almost everything that is voted on in Parliament is determined by a majority vote. The vote is always 'yeah' or 'nay' on a motion introduced by a member. Parties 'whip' their members to vote in line with the party policy. This is true for all 3 parties.

Doesn't stop us from holding them accountable.

Nog

[RalphH]

Doesn't stop us from holding them accountable.

Nog

gee whiz I guess that's why it's often referred to as Accountable Government! You don't like what they do you get to vote them out. Maybe you should move to Port Kells/Fleetwood.

[IronNoggin]

gee whiz I guess that's why it's often referred to as Accountable Government!

Anyone that thinks for a single heartbeat this government is anywhere near "accountable" is delusional.
The only thing they will understand is being shown the curb.
And if that is what you consider "accountable", so be it.

You don't like what they do you get to vote them out. Maybe you should move to Port Kells/Fleetwood.

Don't have to live there to play an influence. That turncoat got in under the "anyone but Harper" regime, and just so slid through. for 11 years prior to that, the riding was Conservative. There is now a directed effort to inform the vast majority of those in his riding just how he turned his back on BC. Want to guess whose hands the riding will be in after October??

Cheers,
Nog

[Robert_G]

Anyone that thinks for a single heartbeat this government is anywhere near "accountable" is delusional.
The only thing they will understand is being shown the curb.

Unfortunately....they still get their pensions....so how much do they really care?

[IronNoggin]

Unfortunately....they still get their pensions....so how much do they really care?

Several, especially in BC, will not get pensions if they are removed this October.
Notably you can count Wilkinson and Hardie among those.

Cheers,
Nog

[RalphH]

Anyone that thinks for a single heartbeat this government is anywhere near "accountable" is delusional.
The only thing they will understand is being shown the curb.

that is what accountable means in the British Parliamentary system Noggy. They can be voted out and replaced.

After they've hit six years in the House, MPs qualify at age 55 for a pension based on the average of their best five years of salary. Assuming the minimum six years of service at the current $158,000 annual salary, a backbench MP stands to receive a pension of more than $28,000 a year.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/not-all-mps-get-pensions-former-parliamentarian-cautions-1.1155061