Fisheries Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2007

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

All right.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

All in favour of the motion by Mr. Lévesque?

I will read the motion again:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) the Committee undertake a study on the condition of the eel grass (zostera marina) beds in James Bay and that representatives of the Cree Nation of Chisasibi, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and other witnesses as appropriate be invited to appear.

There are five in favour and five against.

[An hon. member]

Welcome to the chair.

[An hon. member]

You can just adjourn.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

As a person from the smallest party who always has motions...in fairness to him, I would vote in favour of the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Mr. Lévesque, because of time constraints, the subcommittee will determine the exact time when this can happen. I can't guarantee February, though. That could be the problem. We will do the best we can, as the subcommittee, to move this issue forward.

Thank you, Mr. Lévesque.

Now we will go on to the next motion presented by Mr. Simms. I will read the motion for you:

That the Committee present a Report to the House to request that the Government consider the advisability of referring Bill C-32, An Act respecting the sustainable development of Canada's seacoast and inland fisheries to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans prior to second reading pursuant to Standing Order 73(1).

Mr. Simms, would you like to open the debate, please.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I think it explains what it is. We've talked about this in certain forms under different subjects about this particular piece of legislation. We always thought that when Bill C-45 came in, the advice given and the input sought was not sufficient if you were going to replace an act that was stretching towards 140 years old.

In light of the great spirit that was shown when Bill C-2 was referred to committee, we thought that Bill C-32 would have the same process, whereby we wouldn't be strapped down by certain rules and procedures that could confine us. Hopefully we can take this from the standing committee and go across the country. I think it's something we need to do, given that we are replacing an act that's close to 140 years old.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Mr. Kamp.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Of course the committee would be free to do that, regardless of when they received this piece of legislation, either before or after second reading.

I have some other comments about the substance, but I'm a little concerned about the process as well. It's not out of order or anything, but we are missing our chair and both our vice-chairs. I think it would be appropriate to delay debate and voting on this motion until they are with us--on Wednesday perhaps. There are other members missing as well.

I wonder if the mover of the motion would be open to that.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

He's basically saying that we have people at the committee who normally aren't here. They're replacing other people, obviously because of the weather. I believe Mr. Kamp is saying that in fairness and to have a more enhanced debate, the regular members of the committee should be here to debate and discuss it. That, of course, is in your hands.

Mr. Simms, I'll let you rebut to Mr. Kamp, and then we'll go to Mr. Byrne.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I wouldn't want to undermine you, sir, as the chair. I think you're a great replacement.

I'm willing to hear others if they want to get in on this as well. I understand and appreciate the fact that some of the members aren't here, but I think this is a very important issue and it needs to be addressed right away.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Mr. Byrne.

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

I have a question about the intent of the motion versus what's drafted here. I'm presuming that in the context of parliamentary language and instructions that committees can give, or reports they can send to the House, the language of this motion is drafted in a specific way because of procedure.

Is the intent of the motion to request that the government refer Bill C-32, An Act respecting the sustainable development of Canada's seacoast and inland fisheries, to the Standing Committee of Fisheries and Oceans, or is the intent of the motion to request the government to consider the advisability of referring Bill C-32?

If there's an option here for this committee to present a report to the House to request that the government refer Bill C-32 to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans prior to second reading, pursuant to Standing Order 73(1), then I think that would be a better motion.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

With the help of our great clerk here, I can answer that question for you.

Mr. Byrne, I'll read Standing Order 73(1) out to you:

Immediately after the reading of the Order of the Day for the second reading of any government bill, a Minister of the Crown may, after notifying representatives of the opposition parties, propose a motion that the said bill be forthwith referred to a standing, special or legislative committee. The Speaker shall immediately propose the question to the House and proceedings thereon shall be subject to the following conditions

As the clerk has informed me, this is saying that only the minister can make the indication of the bill going to a committee before second reading, but there's nothing to stop the committee from asking the minister to consider it. That's why the motion is read the way it is. We can't tell the minister to do it; we can only ask him to consider it.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

But if you're using the word “request”, doesn't the word “request” include the same?

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

On that point, is it unparliamentary or contrary to the Standing Orders for the motion to read “That the Committee present a Report to the House to request that the Government refer Bill C-32, An Act respecting...to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans prior to second reading”?

Is that out of order? On “to consider the advisability of referring”, when I read that, I say some lawyer is getting paid by the word here.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

I can answer that for you. As the clerk has indicated, it is the language of Parliament. That is the proper way in order to ask that from him. In previous requests, that's what has been said.

Mr. Williams.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

When I read Standing Order 73(1), I think the motion is out of order, because when the bill is tabled it is stated that the minister will immediately rise and give the designation. I don't see any opportunity in the standing order for the minister to come back at a later time and make that designation. Perhaps you can read that standing order again, but it would seem to me it's out of order.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

I will, Mr. Williams. It says, “Immediately after the reading of the Order of the Day for the second reading of any government bill”. It is just the first reading. That's why.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

So it's still at first reading at this point.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

That is correct, and we did check prior to this, and the motion was in order, according to the Standing Orders.

Mr. Wallace, please.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the opposition should take note that they haven't got the wording among themselves on what it should be, and that a small delay till Wednesday when everybody is back here, as Mr. Kamp has suggested, might be more appropriate so they get correct the wording they want.

You won't be sitting in the chair, so you can speak for the NDP. Since the bill is a significant bill that hasn't been changed in 140-some years, to do the motion correctly I think would be the most appropriate approach.

I would suggest that they wait till Wednesday. It's two days. I don't think the bill is going to change in two days.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

There's no fear that that bill could be brought before the House tomorrow. Can we be assured of that?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

The parliamentary secretary to the minister might be able to assure the committee.