FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 1, 2001

• 0913

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): We'll call the meeting to order.

First let's deal with the budget. I believe it was sent to people, or was it just passed around the table, Andrew?

The Clerk of the Committee: Both, sir.

The Chair: Basically, we need a motion on the budget to handle the witness and video conference expenses for some of the work we're doing. We're doing some work on the sockeye salmon in the Fraser River and Adams River, which will be this Thursday. If necessary, we'll do the shrimpers. That's still up in the air. A study of the coast guard search and rescue capabilities is what it says here, but I'm sure we can use it for other witnesses, if necessary. It's a figure to cover the witness expenses either by bringing them in or by doing it by way of video conferencing. Is there any discussion on that?

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): The west coast witnesses will cost six times $3,800. That's a lot of money. Obviously, that's the cost to get them here. What would be the cost for a video conference?

The Chair: The video conference would cost two times $3,500.

Mr. John Duncan: So it would be $7,000 instead of $22,000 or so.

• 0915

The Chair: Yes. I think DFO has a representative coming in in any event, and that isn't going to—

Mr. John Duncan: Is that one of the six?

The Chair: That's one of the six. I understand we'd be paying for two witnesses from the west coast. Is that not right, Andrew—Ian Todd and Forrest? Is it Ian Todd?

The Clerk: Yes.

Mr. John Duncan: Is it always the case that when we have witnesses from the department, we end up paying for them?

The Chair: We're not going to pay for them. That will not be a cost. It's just that if we need to pay for some people to come in, the budget is there to do so. If they're coming from the department, they're here anyway. We don't have to cover that cost.

Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Just hold on, Guy, for one second.

Mr. John Duncan: I'm still confused.

The Chair: Just to finish the answer, then, John, no, we will not have to pay the DFO costs.

But the budget is there. We don't have to spend it, but we could use it for witness expenses in another case. For instance, the Atlantic policy review was mentioned to me this morning. We may need to bring witnesses in on that. This allocation of money would be there to cover the expenses for bringing witnesses in. On the specific west coast hearing, for the two representatives from the west who were suggested to us, who are from fisheries organizations or are scientists, we would cover their costs plus incidentals. For the department coming in, it wouldn't be necessary to cover those costs. So the budget, although there, wouldn't be spent.

Mr. John Duncan: But we have two video conferences on here as well. Aren't we double counting here?

The Chair: Yes, but it's an allocation to be used for the future as well. We have the coast guard search and rescue. It might require us to do a video conference there. It might not. It's an allocation of funds to have available for witnesses on various issues. It's an allocation that committees request for witness expenses.

Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: My question has to do with the second point of the work plan summary: the study on what shrimpers do when they process shrimp on board their boats. For the most part you are talking about the eastern Atlantic.

[English]

The Chair: It was mentioned to me by one of the people from the minister's office that they've held a series of meetings on the Atlantic fisheries policy review on the east coast. That document was handed out sometime ago. In our original discussions we did state that we should hold a hearing on that at some point when their set of hearings were complete. I understand they are complete now. We don't have room on our agenda until after our east coast trip, but we should at some point spend a couple of days on that issue as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Indeed, it is not enough to talk about just the Lower Saint Lawrence. You must also mention the Atlantic, Ungava Bay, the Labrador sector, the Nunavik sector and Nunavut when you talk about shrimp boats. There is reference to witnesses from the Lower Saint Lawrence, but we must also include the witnesses from Labrador, Nunavik and Nunavut.

[English]

The Chair: Guy, on the point that is on here, a study of shrimpers' practices when processing catches aboard boats, it was brought to our attention by Suzanne, and I think you were here that day, that she had been informed there were some practices that were questionable. She showed us some pictures. We indicated we would be willing to hold a hearing into that if necessary. I don't think the decision as to whether or not to hold one has been made yet.

Georges.

• 0920

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la- Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, Ms. Tremblay had told me that there was a problem about the way shrimp were handled once they were on board. Now I have a question about the role of the committee. I think that Ms. Tremblay's intervention is in order because there was indeed a problem. Do we normally serve as a funnel to pass information on to Fisheries and Oceans?

I am a member of Parliament and normally when a problem like that occurs, the people come to see me. Then I go to Fisheries and Oceans and try to settle the problem. But in this case the committee is becoming a sort of third party in settling matters which Fisheries and Oceans should take care of. If Fisheries and Oceans have been informed of a problem and do not do anything, then perhaps it would be the committee's role to intervene and pressure the department.

Ms. Tremblay is correct in her intervention, except that a member may have some 50 files from his or her riding or region to submit to Fisheries and Oceans. If a member goes through the committee, it gives him more power. It is very important that we target our interventions.

I am not saying that it is not right. Fisheries and Oceans must intervene in this matter. I do not see any point, however, in going through the committee, when the problem should be submitted directly to the department. If the department does not do anything, then we can see what action to take.

[English]

The Chair: Before Gerald comes in, that's in fact why I said I'm not sure whether we've decided to hold a hearing yet or not, because that angle was being checked out with Fisheries and Oceans to see if it could be solved at that level. If it's necessary for us to hold a hearing, we're available to hold one. But what you're suggesting, Georges, is in fact being done.

If there continues to be a problem there, then we'd be willing to hold a day's hearing on it.

Mr. Georges Farrah: I'm not against Madame Tremblay. I just want to be sure—

The Chair: We just want to make sure that the issue is looked after as expediently as possible.

Mr. Georges Farrah: That's the main thing, because the problem is there—no problem there.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): I agree with the statements, because what happens is that you start getting too many issues that are simply frivolous to the committee.

You're exactly right. All that's required here is a letter to the minister. If you don't get satisfaction out of that, you go to the House or to the committee, or wherever you need to go.

It would seem to me that if there's an issue with hygiene on board the boats, or an issue with gulls or terns, or birds of whatever sort, then that's an issue we may want to look at through the Canadian Food Inspection Agency as to the general hygiene aboard boats, but it's not a single issue for the committee at all.

The Chair: Okay, Gerald, the point has been made.

That issue on the shrimpers is in flux at the moment. We'll see whether it comes back to us or not. I know some discussions are being held on it.

Could we have a motion to adopt the budget and then go to amendments if necessary?

[Translation]

Guy.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: We will have to look at the Coast Guard study again, and the question of search and rescue. Are we talking about the Atlantic, the Pacific, Ungava Bay and Nunavut? I know there are problems, but do you mean all of Canada when you talk about the Coast Guard, and search and rescue?

[English]

The Chair: In my understanding, it is whoever the committee members think they need in on that kind of a hearing. We are not necessarily going to do the search and rescue capabilities when we're on the east coast, but we are going to have a hearing with the coast guard in Halifax, I believe, to talk about a coast guard on the Atlantic coast. But as to what's in the budget submission here, when we get into planning coast guard search and rescue, whoever the committee members and whatever areas the committee believes need to be covered should be covered. That's why the budget is fairly broad.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: In closing on the study of the Coast Guard, search and rescue, I must say that we should not forget the far-flung northern regions, those vast territories. If problems do exist at the present time, it would be in the Nunavik and Hudson Bay sectors. I agree that this study should be carried out.

• 0925

[English]

The Chair: Agreed.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): I want to speak to something, Mr. Chairman. It's different from this, so you deal with the budget, and I'll deal with it after that.

The Chair: Okay.

Sarkis, on the budget.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): There's $3,825. I guess that's a first-class ticket.

The Chair: Where are you at?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I'm on the second page, at witness expenses.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: From the west coast, it's approximately $3,825. Is that first class, or business class?

The Chair: No, it would be economy. It's a no-notice economy fare.

I don't think we need to be overly sticky on the moneys here. What we're trying to allocate is a budget for witness expenses, if we need to use it. The cheapest fare possible would be the no-notice economy fare, and that would be used to bring people in if it's necessary to do so.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: What do you mean by “no-notice economy fare”?

The Chair: Well, you call up today to get an economy fare for tomorrow.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Oh. How much is a first-class ticket from Vancouver to here? It can't be more expensive than this.

The Chair: Oh, yes, it is. It's $4,500 or $5,000. Anyway, it's basically a budget allocation. I don't think we need to be overly sticky on it.

John, do you have a point you want to raise on the budget?

Mr. John Duncan: It's related more to the coast guard discussion we were having, so when we're through with the budget—

The Chair: Okay. Can we do the budget first? Can we have a motion to adopt the budget as proposed?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Agreed.

The Chair: It's moved by Sarkis. We don't need a seconder.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: John, you have a point on search and rescue, on the coast guard.

Mr. John Duncan: Yes. For some reason, I'm not sure exactly where we're headed on that. Did something get decided that I'm unaware of on the coast guard issue?

The Chair: No. It was on the list of things we talked about in the first report we had as a steering committee to the general committee. We felt it best to allocate the moneys in the budget rather than come back and have another budget discussion. I personally don't see getting to it until at least the fall, but we'll have it covered so we don't have to have another specific meeting on budget to deal with it, and it's on there to deal with if we can.

Mr. John Duncan: Would it be fair to say that in the fall we will be in the right place to decide what the committee wants to focus on?

The Chair: Yes. What we're going to try to do at the moment is to hold a hearing on the Atlantic policy review, because that is timely and has to be done. We're going to do our one-week tour on the east coast, so we had to work on an interim report on aquaculture. Due to the urgency of the matter, we are going to hold the hearing on the Fraser and Adams rivers. Outside of that, I can't see what more we can do prior to adjournment in the spring.

I would suggest that before the steering committee starts its fall work, it and the full committee will have to meet and determine their agenda for next fall and winter. This may or may not be part of the priorities at that time, but at least we have it covered.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay.

The Chair: There are two motions before the committee. The first one we'll deal with is the motion put forward by Sarkis Assadourian.

Where is Sarkis?

A voice: He's on the phone.

The Chair: Anyway, I think people have the motion that Sarkis put forward. I was going to ask him to speak to it.

• 0930

Dominic, can you go out and yell at Sarkis? Tell him we're going to vote his motion down if he doesn't get the hell in here.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Tell him we will even if he does.

The Chair: Probably.

Sarkis, you have your motion here. Do you want to speak to it? As you have given us notice, I assume you're moving it.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Yes, but I'd like to have discussion on it on Thursday, if it's possible.

The Chair: On Thursday?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: If it's possible, yes.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Today, today.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Okay. All right. The NDP was supporting me last night.

The Chair: Suzanne has spoken. It's either now or never.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Are you in favour of it?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Then we go today.

The Chair: All right, Sarkis, the floor is yours. I would remind you, before you start, that the Minister of Foreign Affairs—I'm sure you're aware of this—reintroduced into the House of Commons an act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, which deals with bulk water shipments. But if you're aware of that, go ahead. The floor is yours.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you very much. I'm sorry for being in and out.

I noticed, too, Mr. Chairman, that the minister introduced Bill C-6 to deal with the same issue that we're dealing with today. I think it's very, very important that we preserve the water for this generation and generations to come because it's a vital commodity. Once it goes, then we don't get it back like trees. You can't plant the water. But it's very, very important. It also complements an NDP motion in the past and the government bill today, but preserving the water for us and future generations....

The damage that can be done once they divert the waters from the main course that they've been following for a thousand years is horrendous and cannot repaired for ecosystems and everything else. We're talking about fish every week here. If you're going to try to preserve fisheries and on the other hand cut the food supply for the fisheries chain, we're not doing a good business; I think we are not doing a favour to ourselves and future generations. I hope everybody takes the motion seriously and then supports the motion because the water is the sovereignty of our nation. We cannot give it up. We cannot give it away. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Speaking to that motion, as a member of Parliament, there are certainly two views. I agree with you that we must protect our environment and protect the sovereignty of our resources and so on, but I also believe—for instance, if we look at the Gisborne Lake situation in Newfoundland, which is cutting lots of profile—that good management is extremely important. And part of good management is that Mother Nature has chosen to empty from the lakes to the ocean, and we can do things, I think, constructively, in a very sustainable way, without shutting the doors completely, bar none. I just don't agree with that.

I think we need to not only utilize our resources and our very best means, but I also think that we should be a sharing nation and share with those less fortunate than we are, providing we do it in the most sustainable way possible, with the environment being very top-notch. Just think about—I can't relate to it in barrels or gallons or whatever—the amount of water that is just simply pouring into the ocean each and every day in Canada and putting some of that into good use. So I think we need a sensible approach if we're going to talk about or discuss this, in any way, shape or form, instead of closing the door or opening the door too wide. So we need to find some happy medium there.

The Chair: Just as a matter of direction here, I don't think we want to get into debating the issue. The purpose of this motion is to decide whether or not the committee is going to take on this responsibility. Am I correct?

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: I don't think it's one for the committee, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Okay. That's the point I want to deal with.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: I don't think it's one for the committee. I think it's one for the environment minister. It's certainly not one for—

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Natural resources.

An hon. member: Foreign affairs.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Resources, foreign affairs, whatever. Natural resources, yes.

The Chair: So you're speaking in opposition, then, to the motion?

• 0935

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: It's not a place for it.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: Yes, I just wanted to say that I think there are at least three other committees better placed than fisheries for this issue. The issue is sovereignty over water, not fisheries, so foreign affairs or natural resources or environment are better committees, I think, for this subject material. Although I think it's an important issue, I don't think it's for this committee.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): No, I'll pass.

The Chair: Any other discussion? All in, all done? Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Just very quickly, I agree with Mr. Duncan that sovereignty over water is the issue. One issue that we haven't dealt with which would take precedence over this would be the dumping of our ballast water into our Great Lakes system from the oceangoing vessels. That's a recommendation already from the freshwater fishery which we haven't dealt with and which the minister hasn't acted upon. That is a more serious issue, I think, in the immediate, short term.

The Chair: I just wonder on that point, Paul, we are dealing with a different fisheries minister now than we were at that time. I wonder if maybe it wouldn't be a good idea for someone to review some of those reports and bring some of those recommendations forward that haven't been acted upon. I don't know what the process is there, but maybe we should look at that.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No, I didn't have a question.

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: Just before we get to your motion, Gerald, I have a comment just on Paul's point. We did a lot of reports as a committee over the last three or four years, and there is a number of...is there any process? Do those ever get brought forward again or what?

Mr. Alan Nixon (Committee Researcher): Once the department has responded, I don't think there's any formal mechanism to bring.... That doesn't mean that I don't think the committee can't bring it forward again if it so wishes.

The Chair: Maybe we need to think about that a little bit.

Mr. Duncan, sorry.

Mr. John Duncan: I was just thinking that if we reviewed the specific recommendations and there's one that we had consensus on, or more than one, we could always entertain a motion to write and request—

The Chair: You can do it by way of a letter, because—

Mr. John Duncan: —that the thing be addressed specifically again, because you're right, there has been change in the minister and maybe in approach.

The Chair: Sometimes, when you go back to those reports, we did a darn good job with some of those reports. There are a lot of good recommendations in them. Some were acted upon.

Gerald.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The other thing—and I'm not familiar with the report—is that there's a fair amount of new technology available for ballast water treatment, and I just wonder if that's included in the report. I think that, if we reviewed it, we'd have an opportunity to look at that. It's not chemical; it's mechanical treatment, and some chemical treatment or heat treatment of ballast water, but there's a fair amount of information out there today that we can actually dump ballast water and have it be benign.

The Chair: All right. Moving to Gerald, you have given notice of a motion on questioning of witnesses. Do you want to explain your point?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'd be more than happy to, Mr. Chair.

The notice of motion for the question of witnesses—there are a couple of issues at stake here. I think the first issue that we need to understand is that every committee is the master of its own destiny. We can choose how we question witnesses or how we don't question witnesses.

• 0940

The other committees I belong to all have a different rotation system from this committee. We rotate seven minutes for each political party, with the recognition of the official opposition as the first questioner, because they are the official opposition, and the government as the second questioner usually. That gives the official opposition and the government the first two questions, then you go to the Bloc Québécois, then you go to the NDP, then you go to the Conservative Party. Because we're not sitting on committee as political party units; we sit on committee representing political parties but we don't work the same as the House works.

I also agree and think very seriously that there should be recognition of the government side of the benches and there should be recognition of the official opposition and the composition of numbers in the House. That's why it goes official opposition, back to the government, Bloc Québécois, NDP, with the Conservatives being last.

What we have now with ten-minute questioning, as far as I'm concerned, is, number one, it's too long. Because if we have a fairly long presenter it's very conceivable that we can have a committee meeting with the Conservative Party never getting to ask a question or the NDP never getting to ask a question.

If you go the way we do it in the natural resources committee or the way we do it in the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee, you can go seven minutes, which is long enough to question a witness, for the official opposition. You can go to the other three parties or you can go to the government, whichever is chosen—I just picked the official opposition—then the government side, then down.

So each political party gets a question. And then in the next line of questioning you go to three-minute rounds, because quite frankly, Mr. Chair, that's long enough to ask your questions, and everybody gets a chance. You go back to the official opposition first, go across to the government, you go to the Bloc Québécois, you go across to the government, you go to the NDP, you go across to the government, to the Conservatives, and then across to the government. Everybody gets a fair and equal opportunity to question the witnesses based upon our representation in Parliament.

In the other committees, if there's an extra question at the end or if there's time for an extra question, it goes back again to the official opposition. So the majority of time you end up with the official opposition getting more time to question the witnesses, based on their numbers in the House, than the Bloc Québécois or the government side.

I just think it's a better system; I think it's a fairer system and I think it's better for the witnesses who appear. It gives everybody a kick at the proverbial can and it flows much better than having ten minutes and five minutes.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Keddy. I assume you're moving an amendment to the questioning procedure that is on our records at the moment.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Sure.

The Chair: I want to point out before John comes in that in terms of the arithmetic under the current system, if everything is right on time when it comes to 40 minutes you're able to question the witness as a Progressive Conservative member.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.

The Chair: Under your proposal it would be 44 minutes before you'd be able to question the witness.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: But in the second round when we start doing three-minute rounds it makes a big difference.

The Chair: John, and then Lawrence and Paul.

Mr. John Duncan: First of all, we've had this rotation in place for last year and this year and I'm not sure about before that, I don't quite quite remember. We've shortened up our presenters; we had the one long presenter but I think since we've shortened up the presenters it's actually worked well. I don't recall an instance when the NDP or PCs did not get to ask questions, except, Gerald, when you're not here. And Gerald hasn't been here for three of our eight meetings and left the fourth one early.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: And you have not, I'm sure.

Mr. John Duncan: We've had representation at every one.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: But have you been here?

Mr. John Duncan: Me specifically? I don't believe so.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Good.

Mr. John Duncan: And I've been here and not asked questions as well.

• 0945

Anyway, if you look at each round, the opposition parties have time allocation according to their standing in the House. So we have 50% of the opposition members, we have 50% of the opposition time. I think that's appropriate. There's only one ten-minute questioner and that's the very first question.

The Chair: And the Liberals, the third one.

Mr. John Duncan: And the third. I'm sorry. The first and the third. So there are just two ten-minuters.

The Chair: Mr. O'Brien, then Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Maybe you can clear up something for me, Mr. Chairman. In terms of the system we've had for the last couple of years, with the ten minutes and the rotation and so on, you said in regard to Mr. Keddy's suggestion that it would be a longer time. Can you put that in perspective?

The Chair: Gerald in his argument said it would be conceivable that under our current procedure the PCs or NDP might not get a question. What I was pointing out to him is that in the first round of questioning, his proposal actually puts him further down the line in terms of minutes than the current proposal by four minutes.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's four minutes, but we get the second round.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: The three-minute one is the one you're working on then.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: But I think—

The Chair: Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: The point I'm trying to make is I think it's most important here that, based on the makeup of the committee and the structure of parties involved, whatever we do as a committee we should try to ensure there's better than a fair chance that each member of all parties who wants to speak can speak. I think that's the point Gerald is making, and I'd support him on it.

I'm not so much caught up with whether the government should have this, or the official opposition, or the 50%, or the 100%. I'm more concerned that if you spend your time on this committee, or any committee, at least you be given a real chance at active participation. I think that's what this is all about. So whatever we do, Mr. Chair, I think we should ensure that happens.

But I also agree with Mr. Duncan based on my time—and I've been away a few times as well, unfortunately—but it's very seldom that I've seen frustration because of lack of participation.

So maybe it works, but if it's seen by somebody as not working I think we need to take a look at it.

The Chair: Mr. Steckle and then Mr. Lunney.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I think in the spirit in which Gerald has brought this forward this morning...and I know he's absolutely right, not all committees function with the ten minutes. I know that.

For me, the committees are places where we come together not so much as parties but as individuals for the investigative questioning of witnesses. For me, it's always interesting to hear the line of questioning of the opposition, and of all members for that matter. Oftentimes we marvel at the information that's available or the background that people have had on certain issues.

I think it's important that we function as a committee where we come here to do the work not as partisans but basically as people who come here to come together. We've done this with this committee in terms of coming together with reports that have been supported by all parties. I think it's important that our work is seen to be something we all would agree to when we're finished and the final analysis is that the reports that are given can be supported by all parties. I think that's what committees ought to be.

In that spirit, I would support Gerald Keddy's motion this morning, not in partisanship to the official opposition against what they had before, or what they might not have now, or what we might lose or gain, but simply in the spirit of trying to make this committee work for the causes we've set out to pursue.

The Chair: Mr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Again, as a newcomer to this committee and to the other committee, the health committee, I'm serving on, I'd say that from our perspective when they're talking about what's going on with committees and rotation in questions, the two committees we're serving on are ones that have been very well received certainly on our side, because we feel that the official opposition has a mandate to hold the government to account.

• 0950

We feel that representation in the House should be reflected in committee because we have a responsibility as the official opposition. We are certainly in favour of good cooperation in here, and we have sensed that, namely a very good spirit of cooperation amongst committee members, both here and on the health committee I serve on as well. I think that needs to be preserved, and I've felt that from the beginning.

However, we feel that this particular issue is very important to the Alliance as the official opposition. When it came to approving travel for this committee, Mr. Cummins was very strong on that particular position. Our party was definitely not going to approve travel for any committees unless our position was respected in terms of our questioning time in committee.

We're very pleased with the way it's been going in this committee and certainly in several others. These were examples of committees that have worked well. If you pull that on us now, Wayne—I know John had words with you about this, and our position is very strong—if we're not respected in this regard and if you expect cooperation from the official opposition, you're going to find a problem getting travel and other arrangements approved.

The Chair: Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Mr. Chairman, through you I'd like clarification of the motion from the mover.

As I understand the words of the motion—and perhaps I'm reading them incorrectly—there would be seven minutes allocated for the first questioner of each party. Do I understand that to mean there would be seven minutes for the official opposition, then seven minutes for the government, and then seven minutes down the line here?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.

Mr. Tom Wappel: So that would be 35 minutes and then after that another 35 minutes. Then it would go back to three minutes for the official opposition and three minutes here, so it would take you another 18 minutes before it got to the PCs.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.

Mr. Tom Wappel: You're saying 35 minutes, then another 35 minutes, and then the PC Party would get seven minutes.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Then you'd wait an additional 18 minutes, assuming all things went well, before you had another chance for another three minutes.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Absolutely.

Mr. Tom Wappel: What is the situation now? It's ten minutes and then ten minutes over here. Does everybody get ten minutes?

The Chair: No. The situation now is that the Canadian Alliance has ten minutes, the Bloc has five minutes, and the Liberals have ten minutes. Then we go back to the Canadian Alliance for five minutes, then to the NDP for five minutes, then to the Liberals for five minutes, and then to the PCs for five minutes.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Altogether, how much would that be in the first round?

The Chair: Suzanne wants me to repeat. The Canadian Alliance has ten minutes, the Bloc five minutes, the Liberals ten minutes, the Canadian Alliance five minutes, the NDP five minutes, the Liberals five minutes, and the Conservatives five minutes.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: So it's 45 minutes—

Mr. Tom Wappel: It's 45 minutes in all and 40 minutes before the PCs get to their first round, as opposed to 35 minutes, where within that 35 minutes they get seven.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Wow.

Mr. John Duncan: The point is, Tom, that the official opposition gets seven minutes out of—

Mr. Tom Wappel: I'm trying to understand why the fifth party in the House wants seven minutes out of the first 35 minutes and then three minutes out of the next 24.

The Chair: Okay. I want to come back to my order, but I'll let Mr. Keddy respond to that.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Quite simply, this is because the committee is the master of its own destiny, and the majority.... In the other committees I'm on, that's how the order works, and it works that way because it does two things. One, it recognizes that the committees are supposed to be set up on a more non-partisan basis—or as much as we can be non-partisan in this place—and two, it recognizes all the official parties and gives them a chance to speak.

The way we recognize—and I say “we” because we are an entity—those official parties is in the order in which they speak. This recognizes the official opposition because they get the lead question. Then it comes back to the government, and each other official party gets an opportunity to question the questioner.

That's why the rotation is set up for seven minutes. You go to your three-minute rounds because it gives more people an opportunity to speak. It gives more Liberals an opportunity to speak, more Alliance members an opportunity to speak, and more members from other opposition parties an opportunity to speak. Again, it's done in the order of representation in the House.

I'll speak to that for now because I want to have some closing comments, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. John Duncan: I have a point of clarification.

• 0955

The Chair: There's a point of clarification. Go ahead.

Mr. John Duncan: There are only two committees in this place that have a second round of three-minute questions: aboriginal affairs and justice. For everyone else, the second round is five or more.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm not hung up on five minutes.

The Chair: Yes. Come back to that, Gerald. I want to go to Suzanne.

I'd like to point out what we've tried to do as chair. If a member is on a line of questioning where further information needs to be drawn out, I personally don't care who does it, be it the Bloc, the NDP, or the Liberals. If a member is on a line of questioning and needs another couple of minutes to finish it, then I think it's appropriate that they have it. We can be too damn sticky about time. It depends on the issue.

[Translation]

Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think that in each committee, the tradition is that we set the rules of the game the first time we meet at the beginning of a session. We set the rules of the game in January. If we start to change all the rules along the way, we will spend more time discussing how much time we are spending on talking rather than on working, when all is said and done. If I remember correctly, the committee decided to reintroduce what you had last year, and that worked very well. Up until now, it has worked well.

It seems quite legitimate to me that the official opposition should have a bit more time than the other opposition parties, given the numbers. Government members should also be given a chance to interact with us, because it is helpful to hear members who are interested in these matters asking good questions—even if they are Liberals. It encourages us in our turn to ask better questions. I do not know why we are still wasting time this morning trying to reach an agreement.

Furthermore, I do not like the sort of blackmail I am hearing from my colleague to my right, who says that if we change the rules of the game, they will go back on their word about travel. I find it rather childish to be bargaining about travel, neglecting the work and expertise of the committee because they are not getting an extra one or two minutes to speak. Quite frankly, I think this shows that the Canadian Alliance needs to achieve some maturity. I find it quite childish, rather like children who threaten their parents, saying they will not love them anymore unless they get some gum. Without wanting to insult children either, they should ask them themselves what they are doing.

I am not at all in favour of that measure. I think that this question has been settled. The fact that we each have five minutes, even if we happen to have three times as many members as they do, is perfectly acceptable to me. I think that if we re-balance things along those lines everyone will have a fair turn. Each of the three parties has five minutes; they have 10. After that, it seems to me that it works very well. I do not know why we should go over this again.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. I have Mr. Stoffer next and then Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): I agree with Madame Tremblay that we can chew on this fat all day long and not get anywhere. With all due respect, my advice to Mr. Lunney is that Alliance members have to show some consistency in their behaviour. In the defence and veterans' affairs committee it's seven, seven, seven, seven, and seven right across the board. Mr. Goldring and at that time Mr. Hanger seemed very much to want to push that type of rotation, and they never once said anything about refusing to travel if they didn't get it.

An hon. member: It's blackmail.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, I'm not calling it blackmail. I'm just calling for consistency. When Mr. Lunney says, if we don't do this or if it's forced upon us...a vote's not a force. You have a right to vote the way you see necessary, but we have to have some consistency from the Alliance party on this. You have Mr. Hanger and Mr. Goldring, two seasoned veterans of the Alliance party, saying that they like the rotation of seven, seven, and seven. Then we come to the fisheries committee and it's, well no, you can't have it that way; it's got to be this particular way.

Let's call the question. Let's have a vote. I don't like the idea of three minutes. The idea of five minutes would be better, but let's call a vote and move on to the business of the day.

The Chair: This is the last business we're dealing with today, so....

Mr. Peter Stoffer: How did Assadourian do? Did you win?

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Yes, I have a very short remark to make. I very much appreciated the intervention made by Ms. Tremblay from the Bloc Québécois. Now I will not have to give lollipops to the Canadian Alliance.

• 1000

[English]

The Chair: If I could, I'd like to speak for a minute on this point.

From my point of view, where we have ran into the problem here was at one particular hearing. We went back to the Alliance a lot of times and always to the same member. What you had was a situation where we were going by the list, but we were actually going back to the same member, and there were a lot of members who hadn't asked questions.

We are each members in our own right, and we certainly have the right to ask questions. I think where we run into the difficulty on the questioning list is when it comes back to the same member and not to a different member of that party. This, I think, creates the trouble. If we first exhausted the list of members who wanted to speak and then came back to that member, it would work better.

I think that's where the problem was, John. On that one we always came back to the same member, and that created some difficulty because you had members down there and over here. On that particular day I felt badly for them because one member had one and a half questions, yet there were some who hadn't had any. That was difficult, but I couldn't get off the questioning list because it wasn't allowed.

Are there ay last comments before Keddy closes?

Just on my point, what is the interpretation? I think I asked you that day, Andrew, whether the interpretation was that you would have to go back to the Canadian Alliance. It couldn't be that you'd have to go to a different member.

The Clerk: I'm trying, but I cannot—-

The Chair: Okay. It doesn't matter anyway.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: In closing, I wish to say I appreciate all the comments that have been made here, but you suggested two things. First of all, Mr. Chairman, on the second round, if the members would sooner have five-minute than three-minute rounds, I have no heartache about that whatsoever. I'm more than happy to go to five-minute rounds, and I will forthwith amend my motion to have five-minute second rounds. We can vote for seven minutes for the first round and five minutes for the second round. That suits everybody better, so I'll put that amendment in there.

In defence of the motion and in response to your comments about one particular meeting, I've never been satisfied with the rotation. The rotation appeared at least part of the time to work fairly well. There have been a number of meetings I've been extremely frustrated at. What the rotation doesn't do is that it doesn't recognize each political party in order in the first round, and it should. It should be official opposition, government, and then the other political parties. It should go to each one instead of going back and forth from the opposition parties to the government party.

In the second round everybody gets an opportunity to ask their question. If it works on the defence committee...the comment was made that there are only two such committees of the House, but it's true of aboriginal affairs and northern development, natural resources, defence, and, I suspect, other committees as well. That makes three committees, not two, where this system is already working, and this would be the fourth one. I think it's more representative of the political parties. It still recognizes the official opposition in the government through the order of speaking, and it gives everybody their opportunity. Especially in round two it gives everybody an opportunity to get up sooner instead of giving all the questions to one or two parties.

It often happens to our questioners that by the time we get to our witness, our questions have basically been asked. That's just a reflection of the order of the parties in the House. If I'm the representative of the fifth party in the House at this meeting, I'm going to be fifth in line for questioning. I don't have any heartache with that, but I want to be fifth in line if that's possible. As it's set up now, quite frankly we don't get that.

Mr. John Duncan: I have a question.

The Chair: A question has been called. Is it a point of order or...?

Mr. John Duncan: We're the ones who are really targeted by this, as far as I'm concerned. I've spoken once on this thing, and I spoke early on. I just think—

• 1005

Mr. Gerald Keddy: There's no targeting. It's just representative of the parties as they exist. And there's no blackmail here, either. I mean, we too have a House leader.

The Chair: Let John finish, Gerald, and then we'll go to the question. I'd like people to have their say.

John.

Mr. John Duncan: I think for us to go from basically half the opposition time to one quarter of the opposition time is a huge disenfranchisement. I don't advise that we go in that direction at all. It is very important to us to maintain our ability...that this current speaking order gives us on this committee.

The Chair: Are there any further last points that anybody wants to raise?

An hon. member: Question.

The Chair: The question has been called.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Is it three minutes or five minutes?

An hon. member: Five minutes, second round.

The Chair: The motion we've been given notice on, Andrew, is it amendable?

The Clerk: It is of course amendable, but if I remember correctly, you can't amend your own motion.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'll do it.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Okay.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: You could with unanimous consent.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I got it yesterday.

An hon. member: You didn't get it this morning.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thanks to you.

The Chair: Is there any discussion on the amendment?

An hon. member: Call the question.

The Chair: This is on the amendment, three to five minutes.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: Madam Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I would just like to get back to shrimps for 30 seconds. Last time we agreed that we would give the minister time to act, and if he failed to do so, the matter would be brought back before the committee.

[English]

The Chair: Can we have order for a moment?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: We agreed that if the minister did not follow up this question, we would come back to the committee on shrimp. In the meantime, we considered the possibility of inviting witnesses here to explain the problem in greater detail. This was listed among the possible subjects to study when we returned from our trip to the Maritimes.

Given what has been decided this morning, are we effectively this shelving forever? This is a problem which goes back to 1995, which has been hanging around since 1995, and no one has done anything about it. It causes difficulties for the processing plants, including those of Matane and Rivière-au-Renard, because too much shrimp is being sold on the black market, shrimp which has been cooked on board the boats. People are being laid off early because the boats are not coming in to unload shrimp as expected. I think it is an important problem which deserves our attention. I would not like to see it put off forever.

[English]

The Chair: Madam Tremblay, we did allocate funds in the budget for a hearing, if necessary. Has the department come back to you?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Not yet.

The Chair: You've had discussions with them, though?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Oui.

The Chair: Then, no, it's not on the back burner. It's still pending. Maybe Andrew would confer with the minister's office, if he could, to just follow up on it and make sure that's done, because if necessary we're more than willing to hold a hearing.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Okay.

The Chair: Any further discussion?

Georges.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah: I want to come back to the same point if I may, just to make sure that I understand.

On the one hand, I believe that there was a problem related to health. You had spoken to me about that. I just wanted to make this point because you were not there. It is important for you to be there.

What I had said was that I did not know whether it was the role of the committee to study certain problems bit by bit; I wondered whether it was necessary to go through the committee to reach the department. Now I know that you went to the department, and that we are waiting for the answers.

Perhaps at some point we could look into the problem of the black market with respect to fisheries. It would appear that there are some species which fishers sell under the table, as they say, so that plants are not being supplied. These questions would also concern Revenue Canada, because there are tax implications here. There is also quite a problem in the lobster fishery.

• 1010

What I was saying earlier, is that these are all issues that could be dealt with in a general way, because it is not just shrimp that is involved. If shrimp processing plants are supplied with less shrimp, then the workers have less work—I agree on that. However, there are other species too, and the committee's rule should perhaps be to study these issues from a much broader perspective that would include all the resources because there is in fact, in the fisheries a problem with people working on the side, selling under the table, that really seems important to me. Those people have licences. The resource belongs to everyone. They were given a privilege with their licences. Deliveries should be done in a legal manner, and Fisheries and Oceans should increase its control measures, especially when catches are unloaded on wharfs. So, what I was saying earlier, was that instead of looking at these issues in an isolated manner, we should adopt an overall approach.

The same is true for food safety. If there are problems associated with hauling shrimp catches on board boats, there may also be problems with other species as well. So, a few minutes ago, my approach was along these lines.

There are some issues that we could study in a general manner because there are some major difficulties associated with them. I believe it important that, in running a fishery—any fishery—control mechanisms should be applied in a legal manner. Furthermore, the resource must be supplied to the plant, and not sold under the table, off the wharf, as is often the case in our regions.

Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I know what Mr. Farrah is saying, but I think that we must also realize that the people are exasperated. The shrimp problem has been with us since 1995. The people have written to both Quebec officials and officials at the federal department, and it seems that no one ever listens to them. They are somewhat frustrated by that. My intention was to do what we did for the people who had problems in Nova Scotia and in New Brunswick and who came here. The fishers' association told us that the lobster fishery was not adequately controlled, for one thing. That is more or less where I was heading with my proposal, to demonstrate to people that we are prepared to listen to them, but they should come forward and explain their problems to us. This can sometimes help departments resolve issues, it puts pressure on them.

Mr. Georges Farrah: Personally, the approach that I outlined earlier is that we probably agree on the substance of the issue, but what is the committee's role? Is it to apply more pressure on the government in each of the files in an isolated manner, or should individual members forward the countless requests that they obviously receive in their ridings directly to the department? This is also one of our responsibilities. So, although we are dealing with this problem now, and it is a very important one that has consequences on the labour force, among other things, there are a number of other problems too. How will we sort them out when the time comes? Will we give more priority to more comprehensive policies? If we can arrange it so that we are combining business with pleasure and putting pressure on the department, that is acceptable to me. I am simply raising these questions.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

As I think we talked about earlier, basically we'll see where it goes with the department, the issue is pending, and if we need to hold a hearing, we'll do so.

That's it, I believe. Meeting adjourned.