FISH Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 6, 1998

• 1535

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: We have a quorum. Your first item of business is to elect a chair, and I'm ready to receive motions to that effect.

Mr. Sekora.

Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.): I move that Charles Hubbard be chair.

An hon. member: Are you sure you don't want me, Lou?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Clerk: Mr. Sekora nominates Charles Hubbard for chair of the committee.

Those in favour please raise their hands. And those against?

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: I invite Mr. Hubbard to take the chair.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)): First of all, I'd like to thank all members of the committee for the confidence you have placed in me—with with one exception, I guess.

We know, of course, that as a committee we certainly welcome new members to our table. We've had a very dynamic committee, and the fisheries and oceans committee is probably one of the most prestigious committees here on the Hill. We certainly command the respect of a great number of people on the Hill, both within and without Parliament, and I suspect that as a committee we'll continue to make sure that everyone is aware of our concerns in terms of fisheries and oceans. We will continue to press forward with it and we will see that the department, the government and, above all, the fishermen benefit from the wisdom that we might bring to this table.

As time goes on, I know the new members may find it a very exciting experience. In fact, I see two new members from the Reform Party. Many of the others are familiar faces, but we do have some new people from our own caucus, so bear with us. I'll try to do my best as your chairman to treat all people equally and fairly and to operate with the utmost transparency so that we will be a very efficient and effective committee.

The next item on our agenda is the election of two vice-chairs. Normally there is one from the government side and one from the opposition.

I recognize Mr. Sekora.

Mr. Lou Sekora: I nominate Carmen Provenzano for vice-chair.

The Chairman: All those in favour of Carmen Provenzano, a former member of the committee, coming back as vice-chair from the government side? Those against?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: I recognize Carmen as the vice-chair.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

The Chairman: And from the opposition, the second vice-chair?

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I nominate John Cummins for the other vice-chair.

The Chairman: All those in favour of having John Cummins, from British Columbia, as vice-chair? Those opposed?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: John, you are the unanimous choice of this group. Congratulations.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

The Chairman: We'll have both coasts represented by our vice-chairs.

In the past, the steering committee consisted of the chairman, the two vice-chairmen and one member from each of the other opposition parties, along with the parliamentary secretary.

With that, I open the floor for acceptance of that procedure or suggestions—

Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Chairman, I move that the steering committee be comprised of only the vice-chairs, the chairman and members of the other parties.

• 1540

There are two members from the government—both the vice-chairman and the chairman—so there's no need to have the parliamentary secretary on the steering committee. Putting three members from the government side on the steering committee would be a bit of an overkill, so I'm putting forward the motion that the steering committee be comprised of just the two vice-chairs and the chairman, plus one member from the Bloc, one member from the NDP, and one member from the Tories.

The Chairman: In effect that would mean the steering committee would consist, then, of two government members and four from the other side of the House. Is that correct?

An hon. member: Five.

An hon. member: Four.

An hon. member: A terrible imbalance.

An hon. member: Four, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Four. I'll let Mr. Lunn now explain who the committee would consist of.

Mr. Gary Lunn: As I see it, it would be yourself, Mr. Chairman, with Mr. Provenzano, Mr. Cummins, who is the other vice-chair, from the Reform Party, and Mr. Stoffer, Mr. Matthews, and Mr. Bernier, I understand, who are the official critics for the other three parties. That would leave us with six on the steering committee.

The Chairman: Is there any debate on this?

Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Chairman, this is not debate but a question. This committee is the first I've ever been on. I'm just wondering if Mr. Lunn could perhaps explain his motion. The parliamentary secretary sat on the steering committee prior to today. Is it standard that the parliamentary secretary sits on the steering committee?

Mr. Lunn, why do you want to exclude the parliamentary secretary?

Mr. Gary Lunn: The parliamentary secretaries are not on the steering committees in all cases. I think it's up to the committee to decide. There are precedents for it.

And considering the fact that we have two parliamentary secretaries on the committee of the whole, I think not having parliamentary secretaries on the steering committee would ensure or at least assist somewhat in ensuring that this committee has some autonomy from the cabinet and the government and that it can decide its own agenda. I don't think it needs any influence from the parliamentary secretaries, with no disrespect to them, of course. They have two members and I think that's more than sufficient in regard to deciding the agenda of the committee.

The Chairman: Is there further debate?

Mr. Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Yes. The thought was mentioned that to see some sort of level of autonomy you would like the parliamentary secretary not to be involved at the steering committee level.

I would like to suggest to the committee that the presence of the parliamentary secretary is by way of assistance, not by way of dominance. In other words, he, having knowledge of some of the potential initiatives that the minister may have, could share some of this information with the committee for its consideration. In a sense, it would improve the flow of communication between the department and the committee, and I would suggest that the tradition be upheld.

The Chairman: Is there further debate?

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, are amendments in order?

The Chairman: I would prefer to put this motion, because it's quite significant, and then welcome a second motion, which would probably be that we would continue as before, with three government members, plus four from the opposition. Is that acceptable to the committee?

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): If you'd like to make an amendment, I certainly wouldn't have any objection to that. I don't know whether anybody else would.

Mr. Gary Lunn: No, I'd be happy to hear his amendment. We'll have an open discussion and see what Mr. Easter's train of thought is. Maybe there's something that would work out for all sides if he has a suggestion that would satisfy all of us.

The Chairman: Mr. Sekora.

Mr. Lou Sekora: I move an amendment that the parliamentary secretary be added to the list.

Mr. John Cummins: That negates the motion.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Yes.

The Chairman: That's why I was suggesting that we not have an amendment. So I would like to ask—

Mr. Wayne Easter: Just to speak to it, if I may, Mr. Chairman—

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Wayne Easter: —and not just because I'm parliamentary secretary, I'll go back to the matter of the steering committee for agriculture and agrifood. We always did have the parliamentary secretary on the steering committee at that particular committee. I really thought it added a lot to the committee, because of that person's connection with the minister, and through that, to the department, in terms of being able to convince witnesses to come before the committee, as well as in terms of the hot issues on both the national and international stages, which we're not always privy to.

• 1545

So I see it as quite important that the parliamentary secretary be put on that committee if the steering committee is going to function at its best.

The Chairman: Are you ready for the motion?

Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Very briefly, I'll just add the reason I put this motion forward. With all respect to Mr. Easter, this committee has not enjoyed co-operation from the department in the past year. In fact, we've requested documents from the department numerous times and have not had co-operation. I do not see the parliamentary secretary—and it doesn't matter who it is—as anything more than a watchdog for the minister if we have him on the committee. This would keep it one more step removed in regard to setting the agenda for where the committee wants to go. They do have two government members, so they could obviously have influence that way.

The Chairman: I'll terminate debate, then, and call the motion. All those in favour of Mr. Lunn's motion? Those opposed?

(Motion negatived)

The Chairman: Could we now have another motion on the composition of our steering committee?

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): I'll move that we have a steering committee consisting of the two vice-chairs, the parliamentary secretary, yourself as chair, and one member from each of the three remaining opposition parties.

The Chairman: Have we heard the motion? This would be relatively the same composition as last year's. Is there any debate on this motion?

All those in favour? Those opposed?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: After checking with the clerk, I guess that is all the business we have to effect today.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Can I put forward a motion with respect to our speaking rotations at committee? I believe we discussed that last time.

The Chairman: I would think, Mr. Lunn, that it would be a topic for conversation Thursday morning. I'd like to meet with the steering committee at that time and we would welcome suggestions that we could bring back to this committee, if that is acceptable to the meeting.

It might also be fair to all concerned who have notices of motion to note that we should have at least 24 or 48 hours' notice of changes that would be made in the working relationships of the committee. It would give all of us time to reflect and to make decisions which certainly would be a major part of our work.

In the past, we always had members who were very anxious about trying to become part of the deliberations. In many cases, they had to wait for up to an hour before their turns came. Again, I would hope that the decision and the recommendations that might come from Thursday's meeting would be duly considered by all members, and I hope that we would try to have a greater participation by everyone in terms of what our committee will do.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I think that might be an item for the steering committee to work out, but I trust your wisdom on that issue, knowing you to be a fair person.

The Chairman: Might there be other topics that the steering committee could bring up at a meeting?

Bill tells me that Thursday morning would be a good time. He will have a room ready for us and a notice will be sent to our offices.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'd like to propose that the committee consider a 48-hour rule for motions. You mentioned that it's been a convention in the past. I think we need to make it part of the formal record.

The Chairman: We will take notice, then, of a certain number of hours for notice of motion. In fairness to some parties that do have difficulty getting members to our meetings and, I think, in fairness to those that only have one member on our committee, a notice of motion with time would be more effective for them. But in any case, it will come back to a general meeting in terms of notices of motions.

Are there other topics that should be discussed?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Just on the topic of times, I understand that Gary has a proposal. And that proposal, then, will be considered at the steering committee meeting on Thursday. Is that what you're saying?

• 1550

Mr. Chairman, there has been some concern expressed in the past about how the committee should be a little tighter in terms of timeframes for the various parties, so as to be able to go through the rotation and give more people the opportunity to speak. If that's not addressed here, there will be a proposal before the steering committee and a report will come back from that steering committee. Am I correct?

The Chairman: And with that, the other factor is quorum. There was a bit of a debate last time when we tried to determine what constituted quorum, and with that, we'll have to give— And again, Mr. Matthews and Mr. Stoffer, you should probably have your input about that in terms of the quorum that would be needed to hear various witnesses.

Is there further business today?

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Chair, welcome to your position. I just wanted to remind the committee—and obviously yourself as well—that we have four unfinished reports. I believe that before we move on to any other business those reports should be tabled in the House of Commons as soon as possible. That's something we should discuss. I would like to discuss it as a full committee, but if you deem it fit to discuss it with the steering committee, that's fine. We have an awful lot of people across the country who wish to get their hands on those reports, and I think we should oblige them.

The Chairman: Monsieur Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Iles-de-la- Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): Further to what Peter just said regarding the three reports, I want you to know that I have nothing against you, Mr. Chairman. You served as vice-chair during the last session.

However, I can't help but notice, as everyone else must, that one person is absent from these proceedings today. I was away these past two weeks for medical reasons and most probably I will have to be away again. Therefore, I'd like to take advantage of this first committee meeting not only to follow up on the reports, but also to comment on the absence of George Baker.

During the last session and over the past year, we worked closely together on the drafting and tabling of several reports. I believe the committee produced something like a three, four or even five reports, a record for a standing committee. However, more remarkable still, Mr. Chairman, is that we produced our first unanimous report. Perhaps that explains why Mr. Baker is not here with us today. In due time, he will no doubt tell us what really transpired.

The opposition isn't fooled. The media isn't either. Mr. Stoffer is asking that we wrap up any unfinished business concerning three final reports as soon as possible, even though you have refused to let us discuss our agenda today. Everyone received the notice of motion tabled by Reform Member Gary Lunn which calls on the committee to examine the response from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Anderson and respond to it. I say that we have already provided a response. Our report was unanimous.

I wanted to go on the record with my comments so that people can prepare themselves accordingly. There is one thing that the committee could do today, even if this is somewhat out of the ordinary. The ten members seated here around the table who worked with George Baker last year could present a unanimous motion so that George Baker understands that people involved in the fishery won't soon forget him and that the minister gets the message that the people and the problems identified in our report aren't about to go away.

I say again that we must find a way to make the department understand that the industry lacks confidence in it. Mr. Baker took great pains in not singling out any one political party when the report was drafted and today, he is paying the price for it.

I'm not sure how this motion could be worded, but we must find a way to praise the excellent job done by George Baker. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you do as good a job as he did.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I would just like to add something and to compliment Mr. Bernier on his remarks.

• 1555

Many of us here spent the last year together in this committee. It was probably one of the more rewarding experiences in being a parliamentarian coming to Ottawa, because the committee had the dynamic of being able to leave our political baggage at the door. As Mr. Bernier has said, unfortunately we've lost the leader of that committee—a leader who was able to hold us all together, I might add.

Unfortunately, it's been interpreted—or at least alleged—that he was in fact critical of the government, whereas I definitely tried to correct that: an entire committee wrote these reports. All the members of Parliament wrote it, including many of us sitting here today, so I suppose we should all be removed if just one person was.

Having said that, I would really like to take this opportunity to say that we all commend Mr. Baker for the work he has done. In my view, we wrote excellent reports, very balanced reports, and gave everybody an opportunity to express their opinions as we interviewed people from the department, scientists, fishermen, and people from communities.

I think it's very unfortunate. The dynamics may not be the same. Hopefully we can achieve that same level and function as a committee, like we did in the past.

But again, I would also like to state on the record that Mr. Baker will be very sadly missed by all parliamentarians in this committee, as will his ability to keep us focused on the problems in order to come up with solutions for the benefit of all fisherman in communities on both coasts.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: We've now heard two tributes to Mr. Baker's work. I will certainly talk with Mr. Baker and express your concerns and our appreciation for his work.

I'll now entertain further comments about Mr. Baker, and then, probably, about Mr. Duncan, who was another very valuable member, the vice-chairman of our committee, and very much involved with the west coast report. We'll take tributes to Mr. Duncan after we complete those to Mr. Baker.

Mr. Sekora.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Mr. Chairman, I'm the new fellow on fish, on this committee. I did talk to George Baker quite a number of times, and with all due respect to what has been said in the House and what has been said all over the place, he did want to be off the committee. He was not just struck off or anything else, I can tell you. I had conversations with him. I'm not covering up for anybody or anything else. I have nothing more to say than that. He did want to be off the committee, so he got switched. I see nothing wrong with that. I don't think it should be an issue. We should go ahead as a committee and work forward from here to see what we can accomplish.

The Chairman: Are there further tributes to Mr. Baker before we turn to those for Mr. Duncan?

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, I certainly am not going to get into the ring until I put the gloves on, but it looks like one glove's off already.

I welcome Mr. Sekora to the committee, but those kind of debates are for the public eye, sir, and if you wish to discuss that with the Newfoundlanders— Mr. Anderson and Mr. Baker have concluded that the fact is yes, Mr. Baker was asked to leave, but we'll debate that later.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, very quickly, that there probably isn't anybody in government today who knows more about fish and who can express that more passionately than Mr. Baker. In the 25 years that he's been a parliamentarian, you could actually see a cod as he described it, and if you've ever seen him discuss the seven-year cycle of the codfish, you'll know that you actually swear you see it when he's discussing it.

In your new capacity, Mr. Chair, I would like to see you write a letter to Mr. Baker, expressing our congratulations on the great work he did and echoing the sentiments of everybody here, and the same goes for Mr. Duncan.

The Chairman: Mr. Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, not being a member of the fisheries committee before and now sitting here on replacement basis, I'm getting interested in the committee. Perhaps I should send in my application—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: —but first I have to learn a lesson on how the fish swim.

That said, Mr. Chair, more seriously, I would certainly like to say a few words about Mr. George Baker, whom I will have known for 10 years in November. He has been a most articulate member of Parliament, he has helped me a lot personally as an individual MP, and he has been to my riding as a keynote speaker and really delighted my constituents.

• 1600

And there is certainly no doubt about the abilities of Mr. Baker, about his talents and his dedication to his work. He knows no clock and no hours and that is certainly attested to by the number of reports that you have said have been produced by the committee.

But I would say that Mr. George Baker would be the first to say—if I can read his mind and his heart—that he did not do it alone, that you were with him, that in fact, that's precisely how a committee should work and how it has worked.

And there are certainly times in our lives when we would like to be respected for whatever views we have. I would certainly like to wish George the best in his new endeavours, in his specialty in Parliament. I am sure that because of his talents and ability you have missed him, but I'm sure, knowing him, that you can rest assured: he'll be with you even if he is not a member of the committee.

And on that note, Mr. Chair, will you convey that message to Mr. Baker, and tell him that now I can have an assurance that he will have time to again visit my riding as a keynote speaker? Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I wasn't here and was listening to this in some other building, I would think that George Baker had died.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Bill Matthews: But let me assure you that George Baker is not dead. We will all hear much more from George Baker about the fishery, the fishery in the east and in the west, in the middle, and up north.

I want to join with my colleagues who served on the committee before in saying a very special thank you to George Baker for his efforts and his dedication. As Mr. Stoffer said, I don't know of anyone else I've met in my life, and in public life particularly, who has the passion and concern that George Baker does about the fisheries throughout this country. I just want to concur with my colleagues who suggested that Mr. Baker be written.

And as well, I concur with my colleagues who suggested that Mr. Duncan be written. He was a very valuable member of the committee as well. He put in some very valuable time and gave us some great insight, really, in compiling the west coast report, Mr. Chairman, as you can concur. Without John Duncan, that would have been very difficult.

I just want to concur with the remarks of my colleagues and remind all of you that you haven't heard the last of George Baker yet.

The Chairman: Shakespeare said about men that the “good is oft interred with their bones”. I'm glad to see that the good in George Baker will not be interred with his bones!

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Mr. Cummins is next.

Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Chairman, I concur with many of the accolades that have been directed towards Mr. Baker, but I can't let the moment go by without casting a negative vote on the committee's interim report on the west coast. It was completely off the mark and it served no useful purpose whatsoever. I want that to be on the record as well. That's not to detract from Mr. Baker at all, but I couldn't let this go by without commenting on that report.

The Chairman: Mr. Cummins, for the committee, would you remind repeating what you just said?

Mr. John Cummins: The west coast interim report, which is all that I've seen, was right off the mark. It served no useful purpose whatsoever and did not address the key issues of concern on the west coast. When I read it, I was most upset, as many of you well know. And seeing as this west coast report has been thrown around here, I can't let the moment go by without making that comment.

The Chairman: And with that, Mr. Cummins, you are aware of who the major author of that report was?

Mr. John Cummins: I don't care who wrote it. It was a committee report. All I'm saying is that it doesn't meet with my approval. Let's put it that way.

The Chairman: Are there other comments?

Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I too want to express my thanks, and I agree that we should send a note of thanks to both George Baker and John Duncan.

I am somewhat saddened that George had to leave the committee for personal reasons—and notified us of such—and I think the dynamics in the last committee were right to be able to come up with a number of unanimous reports. We note Mr. Cummins' concern. He expressed those concerns in the House.

But I think the dynamics were very good, especially, I think, due to John, Duncan and George. We tried to work together to deal with the issue rather than being very partisan about it. And I hope we can move some distance in that regard again.

• 1605

And in regard to George, as everyone knows, I think, George had a particular ability to attract attention to this committee, sometimes when we didn't want it and sometimes when he did, but he had a particular ability to do that, which I think stood the fishing industry in good stead, in that it put the fishing industry problems on the agenda, where they could be seen. Not always were the solutions found, but I think we've moved at least some distance as a result of his activity and his leadership—and John's as well—in terms of moving to solutions down the road.

I certainly support the idea of sending a letter to thank both George and John for their efforts.

The Chairman: Our clerk will work on such a letter.

If there's no further business, we'll adjourn until the steering committee meets on Thursday morning at La Promenade, Room 701, at 9.30 a.m.