Fisheries Committee on Dec. 7th, 2010

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand the intent of the amendment, but if the primary purpose of this whole motion—and there may be others—is to take a look at the Canadian Coast Guard's ability and capacity to deal with oil spills that may well happen in the Atlantic and on the east coast and the Pacific coast, as well as the Arctic waters, it seems to me that if we want a motion to say let's bring in the Canadian Coast Guard to talk about it...because there has been an internal audit that's raised some deficiencies, and we certainly acknowledge that. Let's bring them in to see how they are prepared to handle oil spills, wherever they might happen. We're not opposed to that kind of thing

So now we're just worried about the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Arctic, and not the Atlantic or the Pacific? The amendment is actually constricting it more than I think it needs to be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Kamp.

Mr. Cuzner.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

I don't disagree with Randy's comments that this probably could be a broader-scope study. I also share Ron's concerns with the focus of the committee.

Reading through some of the testimony that has come up during the course of the crab study, the greatest frustration that the crab fishers face is sometimes getting information when it's too late to act on it, or it's too late to respond to, or whatever. If we want the recommendations from the crab study to really count for anything, it's imperative that we have this thing ready to go in a timely fashion.

I understand and support the intent of the motion, and even the broader scope for something like this, but I still think it's imperative for the committee to finish up the two pieces of work that are front and centre. I have groups contacting me on a pretty regular basis looking for us to take on their cause, or to bring their issue before this committee. I'm sure we all do. My piece has been that we want to get the job done on the crab fishery first. If we continue to mount things in front of that, then I think it becomes a problem and our position becomes a little less defensible.

I hate to bail out on the steering committee, but perhaps I could put to the steering committee that if we want to get something done, I think it would make sense to maybe put forward a broader motion. I still think our priority has to be getting the other two studies completed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much.

I've been on this committee for a while, and we've worked very well. I think we just have to be a little careful of continually going off in new directions. I agree completely with Rodger and support what he had to say: we have to complete something.

There are a lot of issues, but something has to happen here; or perhaps it has to happen at the steering committee or somewhere. This is an important committee that does good work, if we do it. There are too many different directions we seem to be heading in. And they're all good directions. Are we just going to go in different directions, or are we going to focus?

It's concerning for me at the moment, truly concerning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. MacAulay.

Mr. Kamp.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

I share those concerns as well, and I agree with Rodger and Lawrence.

My assumption was that, in whatever form, this motion, if it should pass, would then be referred to the steering committee to figure out when that earliest opportunity is. I certainly hope that the earliest opportunity is not until after we've finished at least the snow crab report, if not something on the aquaculture industry as well.

I think we all agree that we may have a tendency to be a bit scattered if we're not careful here. If this motion were to pass in, perhaps, this amended form, it might well be that the steering committee agrees that they want to expand the scope slightly and kind of reword whatever the study is, without being completely tied to only looking at the Gulf of St. Lawrence or Arctic waters.

I think we need to agree as a committee that our priority needs to be this snow crab report, then the aquaculture report after that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Kamp.

Mr. Donnelly.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

I wanted to add my comment about the wording in the motion.

I included “at its earliest opportunity” for a reason, and that is exactly what's being discussed. I agree with the issues about focus. It was fully my intention that this would, if approved, go to the subcommittee for determining where on the work plan it would fall.

I wanted to add that when Mr. Byrne brought forward his motion earlier this year, on the snow crab study, I was certainly supportive of that issue. It was an emerging issue that came up at the time because of the minister's announcement. Although it wasn't on the work plan, I thought it was something we needed to support, which we did. I think that was a good thing.

I was very focused on the Pacific salmon at the time. With the collapse of the sockeye salmon on the west coast last summer, I thought that this needed significant attention. I brought the issue forward and the committee discussed it and agreed that it would become part of the work plan, which was a good thing. We've engaged in that study in terms of looking at aquaculture and the impact of sea lice on wild Pacific salmon.

When those two items came up, they were put on the work plan. I supported Gerry when he brought forward this motion on the snow crab. I think it is important to finish that study. We're very close to it, and that was exactly why I put “at its earliest convenience”, assuming that we would complete the study or get it to a point where we feel confident that we have recommendations to deal with the issues that came up at the start of the snow crab season, so that we have something to bring in before next year's snow crab season. That's about now, so we need to get that done. I agree with that.

I'm hoping that if this goes forward, the subcommittee will be able to determine where on the work plan it should fall.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Donnelly.

Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'm assuming we're speaking to the amendment proposed by Mr. Blais.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

You're correct.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

In my view, the issues surrounding the Arctic have some unique features: the ice, the risk to boats or oil platforms of moving ice packs, the extreme cold, the distance from populated areas, the scarcity of equipment, the difficulty of rescues, the problems with an oil spill cleanup. To me, the Arctic has a distinct set of problems, some of which are similar, but some of which are different from the problems we find in other Canadian waters.

As to Mr. Blais's amendment to include the Gulf of St. Lawrence, I think that once we start to include non-Arctic waters, there is nothing to keep us from studying all waters. A counter-argument might be that there isn't a formal plan to explore for oil and gas on the west coast, but there is no formal limitation on such explorations. In fact, the provincial NDP party, not that long ago, had a premier that was a big proponent of exploring for oil and gas on the British Columbian coast.

I understand and I respect Mr. Blais's concern for the Gulf of St. Lawrence, but I think either this is about the Arctic, because of its unique features, or it is a more general study that includes all Canadian waters.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Ms. Murray.

Are there any further comments or questions on the amendment?

Monsieur Blais.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

In light of the discussions, I would welcome with open arms a subamendment that would say not Arctic waters and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, but of Canadian waters. Besides, Mr. Kamp said so himself that, when the subcommittee has to make a decision on this issue, it will probably want to broaden the scope of the motion to include all waters.

In fact, I have a priority and, at the end of the day, I could talk solely about the waters around the riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, but I am willing to address these incidents from a Canadian perspective. Basically, I think that a subamendment that would cover Canadian waters would be appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

What?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Oh, sorry.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Could you please repeat that? You will understand that it's not a problem for me to repeat a sentence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I asked François how this impacted the seals.

Thank you, Monsieur Blais.

Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I would like to propose a subamendment, if that's the correct form. I would begin with, “That, in light of existing and potential plans to explore for oil and gas in Canadian waters”, and then the rest of it would be the same.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

The clerk informs me that this would be in itself another amendment, because what it does.... We'd have to defeat--or not--the existing amendment and then propose a new amendment.

In other words, we'd have to call the question on the amendment.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Then I would respectfully encourage the chair to call the vote on the amendment proposed by Monsieur Blais. Then I will put forward another amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Is this on the existing amendment, Mr. Weston?