FOPO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 13, 2003

Á

1110

The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.))

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP)

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.)

The Chair

Á

1115

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC)

Á

1120

The Chair

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Bill Matthews

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.)

Á

1125

The Chair

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

The Chair

Á

1130

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

---

NUMBER 015

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 13, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1110)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.)): We have a quorum. Welcome.

    The order of the day will be consideration of a notice of motion. However, this is the way I'd like to handle things, with everybody's permission. We have a report from the agenda and procedure subcommittee, which met on Tuesday. I'd like to discuss that and hopefully pass it. I also want to mention something else before we consider the motion.

    We have before us the second report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Basically, there are four items. The first is that we translate our tenth report into the languages of NAFO. We've already discussed this. We agreed on it, but the clerk advises me that we need a formal motion. I just want to remind everybody that it will not cost the committee anything.

    Second is that the committee invite representatives from the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council to appear before the committee on February 20--that is next Thursday--concerning aquaculture.

    Thirdly, in relation to our study on the Canadian Coast Guard, that the committee travel to Norway, Iceland, and Australia, and in relation to the study on the Atlantic fishery, that the committee travel to the Atlantic provinces. It would be helpful if this were passed so that the clerk could prepare the appropriate draft travel documentation, and I could present it at the liaison committee, which meets next Thursday at 2 p.m. or something like that.

    Is there any discussion?

    Who would like to move the report?

    Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): I so move.

    The Chair: Is there any discussion?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Second is invasive species. We've had two meetings on invasive species, so this is not a new item. As a result of the evidence given by the chairs of the International Joint Commission and the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development--I forgot to discuss this with the subcommittee--it would seem to me most logical that the next witnesses be senior officials from the ministries of environment, transport, and fisheries and oceans. I'd like to have a motion that we have those officials before us, and we'll talk about when that's going to occur after we deal with Mr. Provenzano's motion.

    Would anyone like to move that we call senior officials of Environment, Transport, and Fisheries and Oceans before the committee on the issue of invasive species?

    Monsieur Roy, and Mr. Stoffer is the seconder.

    Is there any discussion?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Our order of business is consideration of a motion from Mr. Carmen Provenzano, for which he gave due notice last week. I will read the motion:

    

That, notwithstanding any previous motion, the Committee move forthwith to consider and complete consideration of the draft report on aquaculture and that no new business be considered until the report has been disposed with.

    That's the motion. It does not require a seconder. Debate on the motion is allowable.

    Mr. Provenzano, I would invite you to defend or explain your motion, if you wish to.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr. Chair and members of the committee, as you know, I just became a member of the committee again, and I brought this motion at the first meeting at which I was in attendance.

    I simply would like the committee to get on with completion of the report. The draft was produced in November 2002. My understanding is that the matter of this report has been in repose since then. The purpose of the motion--and I'm certainly in the committee's hands with respect to how we actually complete the task--is simply to nudge the committee to get on with the job of completing the report.

    I'd be more than satisfied if the end result were something along those lines. I'm not at all, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, pushing for quick consideration or summary treatment of the contents of the report just to get it done. It needs to be a well-considered, meaningful document. If we can set a work schedule around consideration of the document that will bring it to conclusion, instead of it being in repose, I will have accomplished my aim.

    The Chair: Not to take part in the debate but simply to remind members who weren't here at the time--“repose” is an interesting phrase--the report was held pending the preparation of detailed documentation, which is right here, the summary of evidence for the aquaculture study, which was requested by Mr. Burton specifically so that he could review the evidence that was given by all the witnesses.

    In our original work plan, I believe it is accurate to say, we always had this matter coming before us, as of today, to begin our study. The contemplation was that we had other items of business that we wished to complete and we needed to get this done. Our researchers told us it would likely take them a fairly substantial period of time in order to prepare that material.

    The other piece of information that committee members should know is that at present the next five meetings in a row, not including the extra meeting next Wednesday evening, are all on the topic of aquaculture and this report.

    Is there any further discussion on the motion?

    Mr. Cummins.

Á  (1115)  

    Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Further to what you've said, Mr. Chairman, I think my friend should understand that the committee has been moving on this file. I know he was part of the committee when we undertook the study.

    One of the problems we had last fall was that there was very little corporate memory on this committee with regard to the evidence that had been presented, because we simply had new members. So it was very difficult for the committee to consider the report when it didn't have and hadn't heard the evidence.

    This issue is a very important one. It's extremely important on both the east and the west coast, and so the reason it was put off at the time was, number one, all members didn't have that familiarity with it that those of us who had been here from the beginning and sat through all of the hearings had.

    The second reason was that there was some concern about the form the report took, that perhaps at the beginning especially it didn't reflect the evidence we heard, but seemed to be a compilation of other matters.

    So, Mr. Provenzano, I think there is a will on the committee to move quickly on this matter. None of us wants it hanging over our head any longer. I think there might be a little bit of reluctance to restrict ourselves solely to this matter, as you would suggest in your motion, but I can assure you that there is a sense of urgency here. We want to get this done. It has just been hanging over our heads too long. But I'm reluctant to support the motion, because there can be other matters that come up, and we want to be free to deal with them as need be.

    The Chair: Mr. Burton.

    Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Just as a comment, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the staff. I did get all the transcripts over the break, many, many hundreds of pages, and I did read them. Of course, we have the document here as well. So I do appreciate that opportunity. I think it was very useful for me.

    The Chair: Are there any other comments on the motion?

    Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Chairman, since the committee has already decided to give priority to the report on aquaculture, the motion before us is not particularly useful. As Mr. Cummins noted earlier, it would have the disadvantage of restricting the committee's focus to aquaculture, when other matters could be brought to our attention in the spring.

    I feel the motion serves no purpose and for that reason, I will not support it.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci, monsieur Roy.

    Mr. Hearn.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I feel the same as Mr. Cummins, for two reasons.

    Number one, it is on our agenda. We had planned to move forward. We don't know what's going to come up. If the minister makes a decision tomorrow on the closure of the Atlantic fishery, for instance, or whatever, we might have to interrupt. The motion ties our hands, to a point.

    The second point is that for the last year and a half or so I don't think any of our business has been directed by motion. We've more or less agreed on what to do by consensus. I wouldn't want to get back to that, where we're all coming in with motions to address certain topics. I think by consensus we deal with what has to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. We've done a good job there. So I'd rather proceed informally, rather than being directed.

Á  (1120)  

    The Chair: Is there any other discussion? Mr. Matthews.

    Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I want to say that the matter of concluding this report I think is a concern for all of us, and I understand why my colleague brought forward the motion. I think that's his concern as well.

    This has been hanging for so long, and to be very honest with you, I'm a little tired of trying to answer questions from people in the region--in my riding, where we went on aquaculture--as to where the aquaculture report really is. You put them off so long and say, we're trying to address it and we're going to conclude it, but you get a little embarrassed about it, especially when you were responsible for taking the committee to them and having its members listen to them.

    So while I respect the views of my colleagues opposite, I think we need to get on and finish it and table it in the House. I don't know if there's some way we can reach a compromise this morning whereby we get on and do that as well as keeping the window open for other business, as has been referred to by our colleagues, but I think it's time to get on and finish this work. I think it's just been too long. Let's get on and do it. We started out to do the work, we want to report to Parliament on it, so let's not delay it any longer.

    I don't know if the commitment is really there on the part of some parties to finish it, Mr. Chair, but I want to finish it so we can report to the House and to the people we represent.

    The Chair: Is there any other discussion? Mr. Stoffer.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chair, you said the next five sittings, except for the one on Wednesday, will be dedicated to the aquaculture report. Is that correct?

    The Chair: Yes. I should add one other thing. It is my judgment as chair that if this motion passes, our special meeting, which we had set up next Wednesday, would not be able to take place because it deals with the witnesses from the surveying department, who wish to express some serious concerns about lack of undersea surveys. That is new business, and the motion would preclude us from considering any new business until the aquaculture report was concluded.

    So if the motion is passed, we will have to cancel that meeting we had set up. That's an extraordinary meeting outside the usual meetings of the committee. But, yes, the answer is the usual meetings of the committee, this one and the next four, are dedicated to aquaculture.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Maybe I'm ignorant, but I've been here since 1997 and we've done an awful lot of reports, and I don't recall them going over more than 10 hours, which is what that allotted time is, in order to at least have a sort of consensus on how that report is going to go and almost have it completed.

    So barring minority report surveying, I think we can get a good part of that work done in the next five sittings without having to restrict ourselves to a motion that says we can only deal with this and nothing else.

    I don't want to see that meeting cancelled, so I would support my colleague John Cummins on that. We can get the work done, but we don't need to have this motion to do that.

    The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Matthews.

    Mr. Bill Matthews: Is there any way, Mr. Chair, that we can set a reasonable timeframe just to set a date whereby we want to conclude this work? Next thing we'll be breaking again and going home and then.... Let's set a date where we're going to conclude this report and present it to the House. Let's set the date. I'm sure we can do that and go on with other work as well. I'm not suggesting that we should hamstring the committee in any way, but let's set a reasonable date and finish the damn report.

    The Chair: All right. Now that's a reasonable suggestion. However, we do have a motion on the floor that has to be dealt with--no amendments have been moved. I'm in your hands. We have operated on a consensual basis, as far as I can recall being a member of this committee.

    By the way, Mr. Stoffer, I would just comment that this is an exceptionally long report, much longer than the reports that I recall on any other subject matter, so I think it may very well require 10 hours, especially with new members, who will require some education and some.... They will no doubt have some questions that have to be addressed by the researchers, or by Mr. Burton, pointing to evidence or whoever has read that evidence recently.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: I want to cooperate, but--

    The Chair: Anyway, we do have a motion in front of us, and unless the motion is withdrawn--and that requires unanimous consent--I believe we have to vote on that motion, and then, depending on what happens with respect to that motion, we can consider any other options we want to consider with respect to time limits, because there are no time limits on this motion.

    Is there any other discussion on the motion? Mr. Farrah.

[Translation]

    Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I tend to agree. In my opinion, it's important to block off a set amount of time for wrapping up the report. Sometimes, we end up forgetting what we were even discussing. I don't think this reflects any ill will on our part; everyone is acting in good faith.

    I don't think it would be wise to postpone the work indefinitely and in the process, perpetuate the problem. If the mover of the motion was willing to propose a more specific timetable, I would go along with my colleague Mr. Matthews. It's not a matter of devising a strategy to disturb the committee's work. As I see it, to maintain the committee's credibility, it's important to finish what we've started, especially since this matter has been pending for quite some time now.

    That's the truth of the matter, especially since aquaculture is gaining in importance. Obviously, our schedule is always subject to change if something urgent comes up. Maybe crab will become a priority issue in three weeks' time.

    In short, for the sake of the committee's credibility, and that of its members, it's important that we finish what we have started, within a set time frame.

Á  (1125)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Farrah.

    Regardless of what happens with the motion, I think there's consensus that the committee feels it must deal with the report.

    Can I remind members of the dates we're talking about. On February 13 we're dealing with the aquaculture report. On February 18 and 20 we're dealing with the aquaculture report. On February 20 we'll have witnesses. On February 25 and 27 we're dealing with the aquaculture report. We then have a two-week break.

    Then we come to March 18 and 20. At this point, and the clerk will correct me if I'm wrong, we have nothing scheduled. Subject to further confirmation, I do not believe we have anything scheduled for the 18th or 20th, so that also could be devoted to aquaculture. On March 25, I believe, or March 27, subject to his availability, the minister will be coming with respect to the estimates. If I'm wrong, and the minister is coming with respect to the estimates either on March 18 or 20, then we will clearly have March 25 and 27 available.

    So just for your information, at the present time we have at least seven two-hour meetings available currently to discuss the aquaculture report, which would take us up to the end of March. Certainly we have five, which would be 10 hours, as Mr. Stoffer pointed out, to take us to the end of February.

    I think we've exhausted the motion. We have no choice but to deal with the motion, so I put the question.

    Yes, Mr. Provenzano.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Having heard the discussion around the table, I'm satisfied that there seems to be a general will to move with dispatch to complete consideration and completion of this report. I suppose if I'm proved wrong by future events, I can always bring the motion again.

    The Chair: Absolutely.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: At this point, I think I've made the point that I wanted to make. With the consent of the committee, I would withdraw the motion. I have a feeling that the will is there to get this job done now. I certainly don't want to divide the committee or do anything that would impede the other important work of the committee.

    The Chair: Mr. Provenzano is seeking unanimous permission to withdraw the motion.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

Á  (1130)  

    The Chair: So it's gone. Thank you, Mr. Provenzano.

    Now the aquaculture report. For the benefit of the new members.... I'm sorry, before we get into that, with respect to invasive species, so as not to cut into the time of aquaculture.... I don't want to set up a meeting cutting into the aquaculture time; however, I do think it is important--and of course this is just my view, I'm seeking the guidance of the committee--to maintain the momentum of the evidence that we have heard in the last two meetings. I'm wondering if we could agree that we could schedule a special meeting on February 26, which would be a Wednesday, in the evening, similar to the one we're going to have next Wednesday. The committee will provide the usual soup and sandwiches for supper. Of course, it would be subject to the appropriate officials being able to attend, but I would think with two weeks' notice there should be no difficulty.

    I'm looking at the deputy ministers of Environment, Transport, and Fisheries and Oceans. Would that seem like a reasonable plan so that we can carry on with invasive species without in any way impinging on aquaculture? Agreed?

    Mr. Cummins.

    Mr. John Cummins: Well, it's the timing issue here. I think I'd like to see this happen, but again, how many hours a week do we have to spend? I just can't--and I don't--walk into these meetings unprepared.

    If we're going to be trying to rush through the aquaculture thing...that takes research time and so on. If we're packing in three meetings in a week.... I get out of here Wednesday night. There's caucus Wednesday morning, a committee meeting Wednesday night. I don't know how you're supposed to get ready for a committee meeting Thursday morning. I find it very difficult to do.

    The Chair: Mr. Cummins, with great respect, I am assuming you are completely ready for the aquaculture report since you've had two months at least. I don't think you're going to be impinged with respect to your readiness for aquaculture.

    The only issue is whether or not you feel you can be ready to ask questions of deputy ministers of three departments two weeks from now, when the questions have already been prepared by the research bureau, and no doubt your able staff will be able to help you.

    If it is the general will of the committee that we proceed that way, that's how I intend to do it. If Mr. Cummins has convinced you that we should delay it another week or so, then I'm happy to delay it.

    Does anyone else wish to make a comment?

    Then let's just see a straw vote show of hands.

    Can we proceed with the meeting on Wednesday, February 26?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Fine, then we'll proceed with the meeting on February 26, obviously subject to the appropriate officials being available.

    Thank you.

    Now, the subcommittee has agreed on a suggestion that I made as to how we would proceed with aquaculture.

    I'm sorry, we must go in camera for this.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]