Evidence of meeting #15 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was dfo.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
This two-second question is for Mr. Janes, as legal counsel for the Cheam.
Would you be advising them that they would have a legal right to commercially sell the fish that they catch?
12:40 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Cheam First Nation
My advice to them is privileged, but what I would say is that there is obviously the Vanderpeet hurdle that they have to get over. But I do think there's a very large open issue—and Cheam has an outstanding claim about this—and that's the question of title to the Fraser River and title to the fisheries attached to it. That issue is in the public domain.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bill Matthews
Thank you very much.
Is there is someone from the government side who wants a quick answer, in the name of fairness? I'll be a fair chair. If not, we'll thank our witnesses for coming.
Thank you very much for coming, Chief, gentlemen. We enjoyed the exchange. Happy travels.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bill Matthews
If I could have the attention of committee members, please, we'll try to conclude the meeting.
We have an item of business to deal with. It's a notice of motion from Mr. Stoffer that I think everyone has seen.
Mr. Stoffer, do you have something to say before we put this to the committee?
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
The motion that is there is what we have presented, but I understand Monsieur Blais wishes to put forward an amendment, so I thought I should give him the time to explain that amendment.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
This is the first time I've seen the actual proposed motion in both officials languages. Can we be assured that this meets the Standing Orders in terms of having it in our possession at least 48 hours before debate? Was it distributed in both official languages to each member?
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Mr. Kamp, with great respect, this was done in both official languages well in advance of 48 hours. We referred the motion from the last committee hearing, which gives you even more ample time. I gave it to the clerk and to the chair of the committee in both official languages and well in advance of 48 hours.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
The question is whether he distributed it on time, not whether what you did met the Standing Orders.
I'm willing to debate this. I would just like to be assured that we know what the Standing Orders are and that we follow the rules, because they will be used by someone else at another time if we're not very clear on this.
12:40 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee
Monsieur Kamp, I am going to speak in French.
Two weeks ago, Mr. Stoffer tabled his motion to the committee in both official languages. There were two separate pages. As is customary, we distributed the motion in the Member's language. Thus, the English version was handed out to English-speaking MPs, while francophone Members received the French version.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Indeed, proper procedure was followed. Of course, had that not been the case, we would, understandably, have been the first ones to protest.
I would like to move an amendment. Given the proposal on the table, I think it would be appropriate and interesting for the committee to examine the issue of marine fees. We could go with the motion that has been tabled, one with which I agree. However, it might also be interesting to go a step further and examine practices elsewhere in Canada with respect to marine fees. Accordingly, I'm asking that the committee undertake a study of all marine fees charged by the Government of Canada in all regions of the country.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
I find the recommendation of Mr. Blais to be very interesting. It seems to me that if we're going to make a recommendation to the minister or to the House about changing fees, it makes sense to me that we might want to study the subject first and examine what fees are being applied in all areas of the country before we make a recommendation to specifically eliminate fees in one part of the country.
I don't think members have really had an opportunity to determine the extent of the fees, what they're applied for, or how they relate to other fees in other areas. It would probably be valuable for us to examine those issues before we make recommendations in an ad hoc manner.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bill Matthews
Mr. Lunney, Mr. Stoffer's motion has been properly put to the committee in both official languages, with advance notice. After a discussion with the clerk, my interpretation is that what Mr. Blais is doing is really a separate motion. It's really not an amendment to Mr. Stoffer's motion. That's the clerk's advice to me as vice-chair.
I don't see that we have any choice, but I'm again guided by the wishes of the committee that we deal with Mr. Stoffer's motion today, since it is in order. He gave adequate notice, and I think we have to deal with this motion. Whether or not we entertain notice of another motion by Mr. Blais is what we have to decide today.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Along the same track, Mr. Chair, my appeal to the members is to say that if we want to make a recommendation, let's get some information on the subject material before we make that recommendation.
Mr. Stoffer seems to have examined the issue and is satisfied that this is an appropriate recommendation, but I would ask the committee to consider, before we make a recommendation, that we follow Mr. Blais' advice and find the time to at least have a couple of hearings with officials as to what fees actually are applied, how they're applied, what they're there for, and how they relate to fees in other areas, before we make such a recommendation.
Mr. Stoffer's recommendation may in fact be a very good one, but I don't think the committee is actually informed well enough on the issue to make that decision today.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bill Matthews
I don't want to pre-empt Mr. Blais' intent or what he has to say, but I clearly understood from him that he was in no way trying to upstage or not have Mr. Stoffer's motion dealt with. But I'm not speaking for Mr. Blais. He can very well speak for himself. If he wants to respond to that he can.
Mr. Blais first, and then Mr. Cummins.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
If I could just clarify my position, my proposal or amendment is neither meant to be a stalling tactic nor designed in such a way as to have the motion on the table set aside.
I support this motion. There have already been enough delays on this issue. Matters have been up in the air for several years. I think we can easily vote in favour of the main motion and I invite my Conservative party colleagues to do just that.
I simply thought that we could take advantage of the situation, go one step further and examine other cases. Should we be looking at other situations to understand what's really happening here? For instance, I'm thinking about the St. Lawrence with which I'm more familiar. I think we need to look at other cases.
Let me say again that I'm in favour of the main motion. We could have another discussion about the possibility of doing an in-depth study, or not, or talk about the study's terms of reference, and so forth. I don't have a problem with that. To facilitate matters and for the sake of expediency, I'm willing to withdraw my amendment. In any event, I don't think I'll have to do that because my amendment is not in order.
The Chair is therefore at liberty to call for debate on the main motion, since my amendment is out of order.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bill Matthews
Thank you. I understand that you are withdrawing that, Mr. Blais.
(Amendment withdrawn)
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
John Cummins Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC
Thank you, Chairman.
I am a little troubled by the motion. Perhaps the problem is mine as much as it is anybody else's.
To be quite honest, Mr. Chairman, I don't know what the Canadian Coast Guard's cost recovery policy is with respect to the north. We've had a couple of weeks to investigate that; perhaps I should have, but I haven't. I don't know how those costs would compare to the costs elsewhere in the country either. I simply don't know what they entail.
There may be some at the table who can fill me in on this, and I'd be happy if they were to do it now, because I certainly don't have the information. But I can't vote in favour of something when I don't know what I'm voting for or what I'm voting against.
There is the issue of what these costs are, how they compare to the rest of the country, and if these costs that are imposed in this respect are somehow compensated for elsewhere. I don't know that. The issue deserves a better look before we have the vote on it.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bill Matthews
Thank you, Mr. Cummins.
Ms. Karetak-Lindell, did you have something to say on this?
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
I just want to be put on the speaking list. I think there's someone ahead of me.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
