Fisheries Committee on Feb. 28th, 2008

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

There's been a motion passed by the committee, and I think the motion should be proceeded with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

We will request that Ms. Dansereau appear here. I'm not sure we'll get her in before March break, but if the motion is passed by the committee, the request will go forward, and she'll be here with the minister on March 11.

The order of reference will expire before the March break. So if you want to deal with it, we'll have to deal with it after that.

Do you have something on this particular issue, Mr. Stoffer? Just a moment.

Mr. Blais.

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

There is nothing mysterious about it. When the committee receives notice of the appointment made by the privy council and cabinet, it has a limited period of time in which to meet with the appointees. The clerk provides us with information during this period.

It is this timeframe that has to be respected. It would have to be respected if we had something against the appointment of the person in question. I have nothing against the person in question, and I am not questioning her appointment. That is not what I perceive to be the problem. I feel that, in light of the work that she will be doing, it is important to have enough time to talk with her. That is why the motion was tabled. We want to meet with her and have a real dialogue so that we can find out how she intends to approach the different issues that we are studying or that are important to us.

Please do not feel that I am planning to use this timeframe to challenge her appointment.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

The committee has made a motion, which is passed. We'll follow up on the motion, and we'll advise the committee of that.

On March 4 next week, we will be dealing with the James Bay eelgrass study. On March 10, as I mentioned, Ambassador Sullivan will be coming. On March 11, which is our regular Tuesday meeting, we will have the minister and his group. On March 6 we had slated in some committee business to work on, but in light of our testimony today, there's been some suggestion all around that we may invite back Mr. John O'Neill and Mr. Ruseski, who were here this morning, to respond to some of the things that were raised here this morning, just for clarification and maybe some more questions. They were the people who were here the other day.

Mr. Byrne.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Chair, with all due respect, the forthrightness of those witnesses was next to nonexistent.

On the WTO issue, I think we need to broaden the depth and the scope of the witnesses. This, to my mind, has become one of the most paramount, pre-eminent issues that this committee should be looking at, given the timeframes that are involved. The officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Finance offered us absolutely nothing. I think what we need to do is get either corroborating or contradictory evidence from additional expert witnesses and broaden the scope and depth of the testimony that's provided, not simply use up more time with a group of people who came here and basically said nothing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

I realize, and this is a debate I think we need to have, but we're struck on time now. I'm just asking if we should, on March 6, bring back—I know what you're saying and your point of view—those two gentlemen here and ask them specifically about the issues that were raised here this morning and let them respond to those and then follow up on your suggestion of getting some more expert witnesses. Would that be correct?

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

I would certainly agree with having them for a half-hour without—

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

How about we set down one hour for them and one hour for committee business on Thursday? Would that be okay?

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

I'd prefer one hour for them and one hour for additional witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

I don't know if we can do that by next Thursday, and we have March 10 and 11 already booked.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

This is a serious issue. That's my concern.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

We will canvass for some more expert witnesses, but in the meantime maybe we'll get them back for one hour and do committee business for another hour on March 6. Then we'll go from there. We'll certainly take your suggestion seriously.

Okay, everybody, thank you very much.

Oh, sorry, Mr. Byrne.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

I just want to report to the committee that I did indeed receive from our clerk information regarding the Larocque decision, as each and every one of you have done. I received it this Monday past in my mail slot. The information was completely—

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Order, please.

Go ahead.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

It was very incomplete. The information was scanty at best. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is not forthcoming on this request whatsoever. And I think if you analyze the information that has been provided to each and every one of us, you will agree with my assessment.

For example, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans refused to actually indicate exactly what the tonnage was, or what the types of fish being allocated under the scientific quotas originally were. They did indicate what they estimated to be the market value, the landed value. Five thousand metric tonnes of shrimp, according to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, is worth $1.1 million. That is absolutely laughable. Five thousand metric tonnes of shrimp is far in excess of a value of $1.1 million, yet that's what's been recorded by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

I wish that the department would just give us the information. They are starting to hide something now. It's very clear there is something being hidden, and I think this committee should get to the bottom of it.

Why won't they give us the types of species that were allocated and the amount of quota that was allocated? Why is it they're just listing the name of the group that was allocated, some sort of fish for some sort of fishery, and their estimation of the dollar value? Why aren't they giving us the whole list? There were 178 different allocations, I believe, but information on only 61 allocations was given to the committee, and that information was marginal at best.

I'm asking the committee to join with me in raising this issue further and to take specific actions if this information is not provided.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Under committee business next week, we'll have an opportunity to further develop that.

[An hon. member]

Right on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Okay.

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.