FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, February 28, 2001

• 1535

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Mesdames et messieurs, I see a quorum.

Pursuant to Standing Orders 106(1) and 106(2), the first item on the order of business is for you to elect a chair. I'm prepared to receive motions to that effect.

Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): I would be pleased to move the name of Wayne Easter for chair of this committee.

The Clerk: If there are no other nominations, we'll consider them closed.

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: I declare Mr. Easter duly elected and ask that he take the chair.

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): Thank you very much for the vote of confidence. I hope we can work together productively during this term. As a committee last time, we tended to call a spade a spade, and I think we worked together reasonably well. I hope we can do the same this time.

With the indulgence of the committee, before I go to the other motions, I'd like to welcome Andrew as our new clerk.

On behalf of the committee I'd like to put on the record our thanks to Bill Farrell, who was a good clerk for the committee. He was always there when we needed him. He helped out a lot in terms of organization. He wasn't afraid to give us some ideas, although we didn't always agree with him.

I certainly think as a committee we should offer a much appreciated thanks to Bill Farrell for his work for this committee over the last number of years.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): I so move.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): I second that motion.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The motion was carried unanimously.

We have a number of motions to deal with. The first one is for the election of vice-chairs. I will accept the first motion for the election of a vice-chair.

Mr. John Cummins: I'd like to nominate John Duncan as vice-chair.

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): I second that motion.

The Chair: It's seconded by Mr. Loonie.

An hon. member: It's Lunney.

An hon. member: You have a loonie in your pocket.

The Chair: Mr. Lunney, I can tell you that I'll sometimes have trouble with that one.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): We had a Lunn, and now we have a Lunney.

The Chair: That's right.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Congratulations, Mr. Duncan.

I'll now ask for the second motion for the election of a vice-chair.

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): I'd like to nominate Sarkis Assadourian.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): I second that motion.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Sarkis, congratulations on your election as vice-chair.

The next item is the establishment of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

Mr. John Cummins: May I speak to that motion?

The Chair: You may.

Mr. John Cummins: I think that in order to at least give the appearance that the committee is independent of the minister, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should be struck from the list of members for that committee.

The Chair: We don't have a motion on the floor to in effect deal with that, so I'll have to take that as an amendment, John.

Mr. John Cummins: I presumed you were going to make the motion.

Mr. Tom Wappel: I move that motion.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I second that motion.

The Chair: John, would you please repeat your amendment.

Mr. John Cummins: I'd like to amend that motion to strike the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans from the steering committee so that there is the impression the committee is independent from the minister.

• 1540

Mr. John Duncan: I'll second it.

The Chair: The amendment is up for discussion.

Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Personally, I will not support this motion; I'm going to vote against it. The parliamentary secretary has always been a member of all the committees I have sat on since I arrived at the House of Commons in 1993, and his presence has always been a positive experience, whether for those who wanted to obtain explanations, or information, or to facilitate visits by officials or the minister. So I don't see why this would prevent us from functioning, nor why this would give the appearance of something I am not aware of. I'm not going to support that motion.

[English]

The Chair: We have Madame Tremblay opposed.

Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): I want to express my opinion as being opposed as well, Mr. Chairman. Those of us who have served on the committee for a number of years, particularly with our present parliamentary secretary, know that he's a pretty fair and open-minded individual. I certainly support his remaining a member of the steering committee.

The Chair: Is there any other discussion?

John Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: I think the motion has validity. It doesn't mean the parliamentary secretary can't be in the room. There's nothing to pre-empt him from being a resource. I think, as a member of the committee, it does indicate a conflict if we are truly a committee that's not subject to the minister's discretion.

The Chair: We are talking about the subcommittee on agenda and procedure in which all items come back to the full committee.

John, last point.

Mr. John Cummins: My motion is certainly not intended to be a reflection on my good friend Mr. O'Brien. The motion simply is to underline that the committee is independent from the minister. Any of the requests we have to make can be made to Mr. O'Brien. I'm sure he'd be happy to relay our concerns and our requests to the minister. The motion is simply to state upfront that the committee in a real way is independent from the minister.

The Chair: We have an amendment that would remove the parliamentary secretary from the original motion on the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: The amendment is lost on the original motion on the subcommittee that the chair, the two vice-chairs, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and a representative of each the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party, and the Progressive Conservative Party do compose the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Do we have a motion then to deal with the Library of Parliament researcher?

Mr. Tom Wappel: I so move.

The Chair: Mr. Wappel moves that the committee retain the services of one or more research officers from the Library of Parliament, seconded by John Duncan.

Any discussion?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Do we have a motion on the procedure we talked about last time? This committee had a procedure for the rotation of questions that I think worked reasonably well. I heard there was some discussion of other possibilities.

In the first hour of questioning, the Canadian Alliance would be given an initial ten minutes; the Bloc, five; Liberals, ten; CA, five; NDP, five; Liberals, five; PC, five; Liberals, five; CA, five; and then Bloc, five.

• 1545

We didn't stick entirely to it last time as a committee but it was a fairly good guideline. It meant that within the first hour of questioning we could get ten people on. Under that format, in the first hour the CA would have a total of twenty minutes; the Bloc, ten; the NDP, five; the PCs, five; and the Liberals, twenty. I think we were reasonably satisfied with that last time.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I so move.

Mr. John Duncan: I second that motion.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: There's just Mr. Stoffer, and I know he wanted twenty minutes for himself. He needs ten minutes for his initial speech and then ten minutes for questions.

I think everybody knows Mr. Alan Nixon from the Library of Parliament.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know if you intend to convene us on Wednesday afternoons for the Fisheries and Oceans Committee meetings on a regular basis, which would suit me tremendously since Tuesday mornings and Thursday mornings I am at the Agriculture and Agri-food Committee. Thus, I would like to know exactly when you intend to convene us.

[English]

The Chair: We haven't entirely worked that out. I'm aware of that problem because I also want to attend the hearings of the agriculture committee. I've been having some discussions on our side to try to find a time. But I understand the time is the same at the moment.

Is that correct?

The Clerk: It's fixed by the House—

The Chair: Madame Tremblay has a problem with it, I certainly do, and Mr. Steckle is a member of the agriculture committee as well as of the fisheries committee. I think all of us need to approach them in order to try to have it changed, because it's impossible.

An hon. member: To what?

The Chair: We would prefer Tuesdays and Thursdays, I assume.

An hon. member: In the afternoons?

The Chair: The mornings are better.

Andrew.

The Clerk: Procedurally, I believe the committee would have to adopt a motion to report to the House that they wanted their timing changed. Then that report would have to be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It's uphill sledding.

The Chair: Madame Tremblay, on the question, I wonder if we can talk it over with our House leaders and see if there's something we can work out and then put a motion forward.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I am a bit surprised. Surely the clerk knows the procedure better than I do, but this already happened at another committee I sat on. The committee simply agreed on a time that suited it and informed the House in order that it be informed of our wish to change the time of our meeting. So if you need a motion, I am ready to move one proposing that we meet some other time than 9:00 to 11:00 on Tuesdays and Thursdays, since that is when the Agriculture Committee meets.

[English]

The Chair: Should we change? We like our 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. slot. I wonder if we can convince the agriculture committee to change.

Mr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: I just want to add that the health committee also meets from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. on those days, so that would be a problem for me. But 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. would work.

The Chair: From 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. would work for you but not for some of us.

Mr. Farrah.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la- Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.): I sit on the Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I see that all of us sit on other committees and it is not necessarily easy to agree on a schedule. Perhaps it would be best to leave this to our respective leaders to let them try to find a solution, because if we try to set up a schedule according to the interests and obligations of each one, we are not going to get anywhere.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Does this cause problems for you?

Mr. Georges Farrah: This afternoon, for instance, the Human Resources Development Committee is sitting. It may be exceptional, but it is sitting. Normally, it sits on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

[English]

That's just for your information.

• 1550

The Chair: Okay.

I would suggest that after the recess we sit down and talk with the House leadership and see what may be possible, and talk with the agriculture committee as well, to see where we're going to run into problems. We'll have to stack the membership up against the rest of the committees, to see where our problems are and if anything can be resolved.

John Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: This committee has met for several years—I don't know how many—at the same time on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Everybody knows there are conflicts. People have to set their priorities. I don't think this committee should be changing its times.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Especially with the smaller parties like the Tories and ourselves, we have sometimes three or four committees to attend to. I'm think that for the witnesses nine to eleven is the optimal time, no matter where they are in the country, to address us. If we start changing because of the commitments of other committees, as Mr. Farrah said, you're not going to reach consensus within our committee now.

So I agree with John Duncan. Nine to eleven on Tuesdays and Thursdays is a perfect time to meet. I realize it's inconvenient for all of us, but I think it's ideal, and we shouldn't change it.

The Chair: All right. We'll report back on that on Tuesday. We'll see whether anything is possible, whether we might be able to hold our own time slot, and see if we can accommodate people.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Leave it as is.

An hon. member: There's nothing more important than fish, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: We hear you.

We've got Mr. O'Brien and and Mr. Cummins agreeing. That's a good start.

As to witness expenses, that is established by the Board of Internal Economy: that if requested, reasonable travelling, accommodation, and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses who are invited to appear before the committee up to a maximum of—and I believe last time we had the same number—two representatives for any one organization.

Mr. Tom Wappel: That sounds like a good one. I'll move it.

The Chair: Seconded by John Duncan?

Mr. John Duncan: No, I wanted to make an amendment.

The Chair: Okay. Is there a seconder?

Mr. Bill Matthews: I'll second it.

The Chair: John.

Mr. John Duncan: We had one instance where a witness booked business class. I think we've got to make it clear whether we're going to be paying people to come on business class or not, if they're flying to Ottawa.

The Chair: John, the normal procedure is that it is economy. There have been situations where they've had to be flown in executive class under extenuating circumstances, but it normally is economy.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Any further motions?

Mr. John Cummins: I'd like to move that any time the minister appears before us, the meeting be televised.

Mr. James Lunney: I'd like to second it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Televise the whole thing.

The Chair: What happens if you can't get the television room for a month on end? Is it an urgent matter, John?

Mr. John Cummins: I know that you have plenty of sway in the House of Commons, Mr. Chairman. I just think there are many issues that come before us, while our constituency may be a long way away from here, whether it be on the east coast or the west coast or on the lakes in the interior of the country. I think those folks would like to know what the minister has to say. It's an opportunity unlike question period, where any individual questioner gets a chance to address the minister or to pose to him a series of questions. I think it's important to allow this parliamentary process to be seen by people other than the few who attend these committee meetings.

• 1555

The Chair: Mr. Murphy, then Mr. Stoffer, and Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): I would agree with the motion, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps the mover would amend it to “endeavour” to have it televised, because I don't think—

Mr. John Cummins: Sure, that's possible.

Mr. Shawn Murphy: If we made a motion that it will be, and we then can't get it televised, what are we stuck with then?

Mr. John Cummins: Yes, certainly that was the intent, and I would agree with that.

The Chair: Does the seconder agree with that suggestion?

Mr. James Lunney: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I would extend that one more, John, to say “any government officials”. I think it's just as exciting when you have the deputy ministers up here, speaking of various departments within DFO and revealing the information. What they have sometimes is a lot more relevant to the conversation than what the minister himself has, because he's usually leaning over his shoulder getting advice from those people. So I'd say that for any government officials before us, we should endeavour to have things televised.

The Chair: Well, I don't hear an amendment to that effect.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay, I'll make one.

The Chair: Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I was going to say the same thing my colleague said. I was going to say “when and if it is possible to have it televised”—not all the time, but whenever it's possible.

The Chair: I think “endeavour” was the point that was added in, so we have that.

Mr. Stoffer, you want to move an amendment.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes.

The Chair: Go ahead, then.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I move that when any government officials appear before the committee, we endeavour to have it televised.

The Chair: All right, is there a seconder for that amendment? No? No seconder, no motion. On the original motion—

A voice: We don't need a seconder.

The Chair: We don't need a seconder for an amendment?

A voice: Not in committees.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, before we vote on the motion, you might recall that when George Baker was the chair of the fisheries committee, he just simply booked room 253-D up front, and that's the televised room.

The Chair: That was a good idea.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: And you're the chair.

The Chair: We'll inform our clerk that we want the television room every time we can get it.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay, you can be in our planning meeting.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: I want to get back in your good books, see. It's the beginning of a new term, right?

The Chair: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Have we done with that motion? May I introduce a new motion?

[English]

The Chair: No, not yet, but I'm told by the clerk that we don't need a seconder for an amendment.

If you want to put forward your amendment, you still can, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's the same as what I said before: that for any government official who appears before the committee, we endeavour to have the committee meeting televised.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Motion as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Persistence pays.

All right, do we have a motion for notice of substantive motions?

Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Mr. Chairman, there were a number of motions at the previous organizational meeting. Maybe we could go through them in some sort of order.

As well, I know Madame Tremblay wanted to bring a motion forward. Perhaps I could cede to her, because she mentioned it to you first.

The Chair: Madame Tremblay, you have a motion?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I want to present a motion concerning the reduced quorum to hear witnesses. Even if we cannot have the quorum we have for the full committee, in order not to force people to travel for nothing, I propose that you be authorized, Mr. Chairman, to hear witnesses, as long as two other members are present, at least one of which must be an opposition member.

[English]

The Chair: At least two? So you're saying it would be three members in total?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes, three members in total,

[Translation]

at least one of which must be from the opposition. There can be more, but that is a minimum.

[English]

The Chair: And that is to hear evidence?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes.

The Chair: Is there a seconder for that motion?

Mr. Paul Steckle: Seconded.

Mr. John Duncan: Can we have it repeated, please?

The Chair: That the chair be authorized to hold meetings in order to receive evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three members, including both government and opposition, be present, with the provision that in the case of the absence of either government or opposition members, the chair be authorized to call the meeting to order—

• 1600

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: No, no. You are adding that.

[English]

The Chair: Stop there?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Stop there.

The Chair: All right. It's your motion. I wouldn't want to confuse it.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: That was my motion. That was a motion of the last Parliament.

The Chair: All right. We did everything right in this committee last time, you know.

Have you got it, John?

Mr. John Duncan: It makes a new quorum of three.

The Chair: It makes a quorum of three to hear evidence.

Mr. John Duncan: As long as there's one from either government or opposition.

The Chair: One of each, plus one other.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Tom Wappel: One of my favourite topics came up, and I would like to move that the committee authorize the chair from time to time, as the need arises, to take, in conjunction with the clerk of the committee, the appropriate measures to provide lunches for the committee and subcommittees, for working purposes, and that the cost of these lunches be charged to the appropriate budget of the committee.

The Chair: Is there a seconder for that motion? Who are the big eaters?

Mr. James Lunney: I second the motion.

The Chair: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I have another motion.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. You have a different motion.

Any further discussion?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Does it have to be fish?

Madame Tremblay, then Mr. Duncan.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to read the motion. It is moved that:

All the documents to be tabled by the clerk should be tabled in both official languages and distributed to the members on condition that they are in both official languages.

[English]

Mr. Georges Farrah: I second the motion.

The Chair: It's open for discussion.

Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you very much.

Last session, as you recall, Mr. Chairman, a few times we had witnesses who came at the last minute or the last day. They didn't have time to translate. We accepted those testimonies in writing, then had them translated. But we did not stop the witnesses from making their presentations. We're going to have problems: sometimes it will be only in English or only in French. If you don't accommodate that, then you're going to waste the money and time of the witnesses and the committee.

I think we should aim to be like that. We should not deny the opportunity to someone coming in, to present only in English or only in French—provided there's enough time.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I would just like to clarify what I said: the documents tabled by the clerk. I did not say, by the witnesses. The documents tabled by the clerk must be in both languages. If the witnesses did not have time to have their documents translated, they can give them to us. But those the clerk tables must be in both languages.

[English]

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Mr. Duncan had a point he wanted to raise.

Mr. John Duncan: I'd like to move that for in camera meetings, we have a transcript supplied to members only.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Not to be leaked.

Mr. John Duncan: No, not to be leaked, and held by the clerk, that's fine.

The Chair: That is the procedure now. Do we need a motion to that effect? Yes, we do.

Mr. John Duncan: I so move.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I second it.

The Chair: It's moved by Mr. Duncan that transcripts of in camera meetings be held by the clerk.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Mr. Cummins and Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. John Cummins: I would like to move that for any Order in Council nominations or appointments, including ministerial appointments, regarding the fisheries, the nominees appear before the committee, complete with their curriculum vitae, for review.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Any nominee? You have 500 people in different organizations appointed—

Mr. John Cummins: No, no, when it's an Order in Council appointment relating to fisheries.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Okay.

Mr. John Cummins: If it's the chairman of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, or a ministerial appointment on a board related to the fisheries, these people would appear before committee with their curriculum vitae so that we can assess the appropriateness of the appointment.

• 1605

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'll second the motion.

The Chair: It's up for discussion.

Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that's a good idea. I don't know how many Order in Council appointments there are—and I am new to this committee but I am not new to committees—but this motion as I understand it would bind the committee to examine each and every Order in Council appointment. I don't know how much time we have between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on a Tuesday and a Thursday, but I don't think we would have much time to do anything else.

If I may remind committee members, in the last Parliament was the motion that all Order in Council appointments that pertained to fisheries be circulated to each member of the committee. Then presumably anybody who wanted to examine that particular member would discuss that with the subcommittee, and then it would be brought to the committee. The committee would make a decision on an ad hoc basis from time to time as to whether or not that particular person should be brought before the committee and examined.

In my opinion, that is the logical way to do it. Otherwise we're completely handcuffing ourselves. So I would disagree with the motion as presented.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: I tend to agree with Mr. Wappel. What we want is to be notified when these appointments are made. I understand that the procedure is to present us with the curriculum vitae, and then if the committee desires, these people are to be reviewed by the committee. I don't want to bind us to doing every last one. That certainly wasn't the intention.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins, are you willing to withdraw your motion and put something in to this effect, that whenever Order in Council appointments are referred to the committee, the clerk shall obtain and circulate to each member of the committee a copy of the said appointments?

Mr. John Cummins: Yes, complete with the curricula vitae.

The Chair: That means both the clerk and the department are obligated to give us notice of Order in Council appointments, and then we can make a decision.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes, and that's ministerial appointments as well. I think we should be advised of the Order in Council nominations and ministerial appointments. Then, if the committee wishes, it may bring these people before it.

The Chair: Are you withdrawing your other one?

Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

(Motion withdrawn)

The Chair: You're now moving this new one.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I'll second it.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer and then Duncan.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Every committee has been going on about the timeframe it takes to be able to present a motion. If I'm not mistaken, last time 48 hours' notice had to be given prior to a motion.

I don't think you're going to let me get away with presenting a motion immediately without any timeframe, so I'd like it reduced to 24 hours, as we did the other day in defence committee. It was at least a little quicker in that regard. So when we present a motion to the floor to be voted on, I'd like the timeframe reduced to 24 hours' notice.

The Chair: So you're making a motion that 24 hours' notice be given to the members of the committee before any substantive motion is considered by the committee—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes.

The Chair: —and that the motion be circulated in both official languages?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Seconded.

The Chair: Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I tend at first blush to agree with my friend, but the argument was made at agriculture, as Madame Tremblay will recognize, that there may at times be problems with translation for those who want to have translation done. Therefore, the 24 hours would not in all cases be appropriate. That was the argument made for the 48 hours. Other than that, I don't have a problem with it.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion?

Mr. John Duncan: If it can't be translated within 24 hours, it can't be fulfilled, so the motion is stilted.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: It's conditional on translation.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I have a question for our clerk.

Normally, a motion is only a few lines long. Is it plausible that in the Canadian Parliament we cannot translate five or six lines in 24 hours? If that is the case, it's quit discouraging. If there are only five or six lines, send them to me and I will translate them.

• 1610

[English]

The Chair: Madame Tremblay, we had some interesting discussions on translation with your former colleague, Mr. Bernier, here last time, but it always worked out.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: I would like to make a motion that we go in camera only at the call of the committee, not the call of the chair. In other words, it would require a majority of the committee to go in camera.

The Chair: Are you making that a motion?

Mr. John Duncan: I'm making that a motion.

The Chair: The motion is that the committee only go in camera at the call of the committee, as opposed to the call of the chair, which is normal procedure.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'll second that.

The Chair: It's open for discussion.

Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I would like the mover of the motion to explain why he is depriving the chair of this privilege. If we have a chair, it is so that he can chair the meeting and make the best possible decisions for the committee. In this case, I don't see what difference it makes, since the majority is liberal. The president has only to turn toward the people from his party and he will obtain a majority quite easily. Even if we were all opposed to that, the chair would have the support of his colleagues, or at least I hope so. I don't quite understand the gist of that proposal.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Duncan, do you want to respond to that?

Mr. John Duncan: Normally the chair does get the support of all of his colleagues, but not always, and we do break party ranks from time to time on this committee. I think it's a democratic principle we should go to, because we're a public institution, and before we take ourselves out of the public domain, we should all, or in majority, agree that we're doing that. I think it's pretty simple.

The Chair: Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Shawn Murphy: For the sake of clarity, in the past has it been the practice that the chair could make the call to go in camera? I would have thought that normally democratic principles would apply, and the committee as a whole would decide whether it went in camera or not.

The Chair: Yes, that has been the practice, but I think we always had agreement, did we not?

Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

The Chair: We always had agreement.

Mr. Shawn Murphy: Practically, it may not make a whole lot of difference—as Madame Tremblay said, you could always.... I would have thought the committee would decide, but maybe I'm wrong.

Mr. John Duncan: This is not revolutionary. It's just formalizing what was being done, for the most part.

The Chair: See, we got so democratic in this committee last time he wants to put it into law. We have a motion before us all.

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: Is there any further motion?

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: I have one quickie, that the witnesses' opening statements be limited to ten minutes. The reason for it is that at times we get witnesses we are really interested in questioning, and they realize we're under time constraints and can drone on. So I think that witnesses before us should be able to make their case in ten minutes, and then we can move on. If they can't, then they should be sending us some supporting documentation. I think the important thing here is to get on with the questioning after that opening statement.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I second that.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Can I ask a question?

Mr. John Cummins: Sure.

The Chair: Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Ten minutes for each person on the delegation? You said you can have two witnesses from each group. So do you mean twenty minutes or ten minutes combined?

Mr. John Cummins: If we've got a delegation, then it should select a spokesman to make the statement. Presumably, if it's a delegation, they're all in concurrence as to the reason they're there, so let's hear from them; they should be able to make their case in ten minutes. If they've got supporting documentation, make that documentation available to us in advance, so that it can be translated and presented to us, and then let's get on with the questions. We don't need to hear some guy ramble on for 30 minutes before we get into the questioning.

• 1615

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: You're saying a delegation will have ten minutes, not a witness.

Mr. John Cummins: A witness or a delegation.

The Chair: On that point, I think we've tried to keep people pretty well to ten minutes, but you may need a little flexibility there.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Although I agree with the intent of Mr. Cummins' reply, I would like to see it actually extended to fifteen minutes. For example, if we have a large aboriginal group—we will be dealing with the Marshall decision—their traditional history is that one person just doesn't speak, it's usually two, and sometimes three.

If we can increase it to fifteen minutes instead of ten, John, then I would agree with that. These people sometimes travel a long distance to get here. One person will speak, but they have someone else coming with them, and they're in isolation if they don't get to say a couple of words as well. So if we can make it fifteen minutes, I think that would be more appropriate.

The Chair: So you're moving an amendment.

Madame Tremblay, we'll accept your amendment, I'm told. The previous—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, God love you for it.

The Chair: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, if you tell our witnesses that they have 10 minutes to present their point of view and realize after 10 minutes that these people need more time, you can easily obtain the unanimous consent of the committee to grant the witnesses the time they need. If we tell people they have 15 minutes, they will want to take 20. If we tell them they have 20, they will want 25. That is always what happens. People have trouble collecting their thoughts and expressing them in the time that is given them. I prefer that we keep the 10-minute period and be ready to be flexible when necessary to extend the time allotted to certain witnesses.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No offence to you, Madame Tremblay, but the fact is that we're not here for ourselves, we're here for the Canadian public. The Canadian public has the opportunity, in both official languages, to state their case. I believe questioning the witnesses to get the information is very important, but so is still allowing a maximum of fifteen minutes. With the discretion of the chair or unanimous consent, you can always allow them to go further, right? But we should put a limit on it so that when witnesses come here, they know they or their group will have fifteen minutes to present their case. If we let them know that, they'll prepare their documentation in that manner as well.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, when we have invited witnesses in previously, we've told them to try to keep their presentations to ten minutes and we've tried to cut them off at that through the chair. But if you're putting a rule in, then it could get more cumbersome.

Is there any other discussion?

Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Madame Tremblay. If you give them fifteen minutes, they'll take 25. If you say ten minutes, what you're trying to do is impress upon people to get their act together, to make it concise and to make their presentation. The chair has always been somewhat lenient in allowing people that little bit of extra time when necessary, and I would expect that to continue. But I think people should realize that ten minutes is a long time. I can't think of too many issues that are so complex that you can't spit something out in ten minutes.

The Chair: The next time the chief fisheries critic for the Alliance Party wants a little more than ten minutes, we'll be able to cut him off, I assume, right, John?

Mr. John Cummins: But I'm probing, I'm asking questions. I'm not delivering—

The Chair: Oh, oh! You're probing, that's true. What goes around comes around, John.

We have a motion on the floor, and we have the amendment to the motion, which is for fifteen minutes.

(Amendment negatived)

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Are there any further motions? No? Then we will have a steering committee meeting tomorrow at 9 a.m.

Might I just put something out as a suggestion to the committee? I'm not sure if we can get him for Tuesday or not, but the Auditor General had a report on aquaculture as part of his critique.

• 1620

Should we try to get him for the Tuesday after next? We just need agreement. Is it agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: We'll try to do that, then. We have our first witness slated in.

We'll meet as a steering committee tomorrow at 9 a.m. in this room.

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.