Fisheries Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

We're back to the original motion, as moved by Mr. MacAulay, that we adopt the motion as used in the 39th Parliament. I'll read it once more:

That witnesses from an organization be given ten (10) minutes to make their opening statement; and that, at the discretion of the Chair, during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated ten (10) minutes for the first questioner of the Liberal Party, seven (7) minutes for the first questioner of the Bloc Québécois, five (5) minutes to the questioner of the New Democratic Party and ten (10) minutes for the first questioner of the Conservative Party; and that if there is a subsequent round that the rotation be the same except all questioning be for five (5) minutes.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Are there any further motions to be brought forward today?

Mr. Kamp.

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

I wonder whether another routine motion might be in order specifying that legislation has priority within this committee. In other words, it would read something along the lines that the consideration and examination of any government or private member's bill that falls within the express mandate of the committee shall take precedence over any study or non-legislative examination other than questions of privilege. In such circumstances, the non-legislative study shall be deferred until such time as the bill is reported back to the House.

It's basically just saying that if legislation makes its way to us--it doesn't happen too often in this committee, but it might--it would take priority over another study. So we wouldn't be able to not deal with legislation, according to this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

It has been moved by Mr. Kamp that the consideration and examination of any government or private member's bill that falls within the express mandate of the committee shall take precedence over any study or non-legislative examination other than questions of privilege. In such circumstances, the non-legislative study shall be deferred until such time as the bill is reported back to the House.

Is there discussion?

Mr. Stoffer was ahead, but he pulled out.

Mr. Blais.

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

Thank you very much.

I want to make sure that I fully understand the new motion tabled by Mr. Kamp. There are two or three points on which I need clarification.

Firstly, the motion seeks to give priority to bills. Under the committee's rules, when a bill is tabled in the House of Commons... For example, we dealt previously with Bill C-45, which became C-32, the new Fisheries Act. If the bill comes back to this committee for consideration, it is discussed in priority. I do not see the need to vote on a procedural motion that establishes a procedural rule already in effect. The practice could be strengthened by adding something that is already part and parcel of how we operate. I have a lot of trouble understanding this. I hope Mr. Kamp can provide me further details on that.

Next, subjects that are discussed in order of priority are done so by both the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, and by the plenary committee. Each time we hold these discussions, we always come to a consensus on priority topics. As you know, I have two or three topics that I would like to table, and you probably have some too. I, along with my party, have collaborated with you very well, as have the Liberals and New Democrats. This was especially the case when people from British Columbia wanted to talk about salmon in the Fraser River. I fully understood that it was important for them to talk about that. There were other issues pertaining specifically to Quebec that are of particular concern to me, and that I raised with members of the committee at the time. After a few years of discussion, we had the opportunity to deal with the small craft harbour issue again. That's how things work.

Given the current situation, there are new issues that are being given priority. What will the new fishing season be like, as it will begin in a few days, or a few weeks, and which has already begun in some parts of the country such as Nova Scotia?

The motion or amendment that has been tabled does absolutely nothing to change the current situation. It does not do anything more than tie our hands. I have a problem with that. Our committee, be it the whole committee, or the subcommittee, must enjoy total freedom. This total freedom should allow us to deal with things as they occur. I don't know what the next crisis faced by the fisheries sector in upcoming weeks or months will be. I hope that it won't be a huge crisis; however, without knowing what type of crisis it will be, I unfortunately have the feeling that there will be one. I hope that any crisis will force members of this committee to start talking.

I am open to Mr. Kamp's motion, but for now, I am very reluctant to support it. To my mind, it is not necessary for us to undertake future business.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Stoffer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

To reiterate, I appreciate what Mr. Kamp is doing. If a private member's bill were coming through and we were doing something else, it would delay that PMB for—who knows—an indefinite period of time. So it would have a detrimental effect on the opposition.

The flip side is that if the government had a bill and we were into something else, it would take precedence over our business, and thus we would delay a study on whatever it is we were doing.

One thing about the committee is its independence. The committee can decide, if something pops up, as in that situation that happened in the Îles-de-la-Madeleine last year with the sinking of a vessel, to interrupt our business to discuss it. The committee makes a decision at the particular time.

So I don't think the motion is necessary. I think if something comes up that the committee decides we need to divert our attention to, we should have the ability to do so and not lock ourselves into a set motion of this nature.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the interventions made by Mr. Blais and Mr. Stoffer; however, we are elected as parliamentarians and we are legislators. We're here to legislate; that is our primary role, our primary responsibility. If we want to be students, we should go to university where we can study all we like.

Studies are very useful and very effective at times when there is no legislation before the committee. But history has taught me, in the last session of Parliament, that if we don't make legislation a priority, sometimes coalitions from the opposition—and I don't mean this as any slight—can detract from that responsibility. This is the responsibility our electors sent us here to look after: to address the legislation.

If we have an emergency or a crisis come up such as Mr. Blais has mentioned, we have the ability to hold an emergency debate in the House of Commons. If that doesn't suffice, we can always hold extra meetings of this particular committee. However, government or private members' business legislation should be our foremost responsibility when legislation is brought forward to this committee as part of our mandate. It cannot get back through the House. The legislative process that we have in Parliament is such that a bill cannot pass Parliament unless it gets through this committee. This committee's job, as a subset of Parliament, is to examine legislation and get it back to the House in as thorough but expedient a manner as possible.

Unless I'm missing something—and if the opposition parties would like to educate me on how their electors seem to think that a study is more important than passing legislation, I'd like to hear it—from my perspective this is pertinent. It's our foremost responsibility to get that legislation, when it's received at committee, back to the House in an amended or an unamended form.

Could you imagine a private member's bill coming through and being reported back in 60 days to the House of Commons as unamended, if this committee chose not to deal with it? I find that to be unacceptable. If we're going to do those kinds of things, if we're going to have committee members.... It could be a private member's bill from anybody. It could be a private member's bill from Mr. Blais, from Mr. MacAulay, or from any of the members of this particular committee, dealing with an issue such as we had with the lighthouse bill in the last Parliament, which we dealt with in an expedient manner.

This committee has done well. This committee has a different rapport from that in most committees. However, experience has taught, I think, a valuable lesson to all parliamentarians, that when legislation is referred to the committee from the House of Commons, it should be our first and foremost matter of business.

I don't think there's a single problem in enshrining this in our routine motions. To fail to enshrine it in our routine motions means that legislation is not a priority of those who choose to vote against this particular motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Kamp.

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

I think Mr. Calkins has said it well. The attempt was not to tie the hands of this committee, but really to acknowledge the obligation that already exists. I think I heard Mr. Blais say that he recognized that this is the normal procedure. This is just a routine motion to acknowledge that this is our business.

He has asked why we would do this. It's because we can point to some other committees where it's been very difficult to get contentious legislation dealt with because the opposition parties have the ability to control the agenda and have refused to look at that legislation. We think we ought to state as a committee that legislation is our priority and that when it comes before us we ought to give it the consideration it deserves.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

I agree with the members from the Bloc and the NDP that this isn't a necessary amendment. All committees have legislation as their priority, but they don't write it in as a particular addition. I don't know why we would now start putting it in as a routine motion, for the exact reason that committees are masters of their own destiny, as Mr. Blais has said. They should discuss what they want to discuss. If they want to do a study to improve very important legislation that's more important, it's all legislative work.

As Mr. Calkins outlined, we don't stop bills, because there's a process where they go back to the House anyway, so I don't think this motion is necessary. I don't think we need to start a precedent in Parliament with this particular motion, because it ties the hands of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Stoffer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

I've now had the distinct pleasure of being on this committee since 1997. We've done over 28 comprehensive reports, I believe, 25 of which were unanimous. The reality is that each and every one of those reports has assisted the minister and the department in getting through some tough situations, be it the seal harvest that we were concerned about or other concerns of that nature.

Mr. Calkins, we're not just legislators; we're also here to understand the issues facing fishermen and their communities across the country. Many of those issues have nothing to do with the legislative nature of things. I've seen a variety of chairs and members come and go, but the reality is that I've never once seen a report where a minister hasn't come back, thanked the committee wholeheartedly, and then actually used some of those unanimous recommendations to improve the lives not only of the people working in the department, but also of the fishermen and their families.

Many times the committee has been asked for help—by Mr. Kamp himself and previous parliamentary secretaries who have been here—and when we can get a recommendation that's unanimous to help the minister in a particular area like the seal harvest, for example, it goes a long way in showing a united front.

Again, I go back to the fact that we're not just legislators. We're also here to assist the minister and the department in the many complicated issues that face us on a day-to-day basis.

I suggest that we go on to the question, have our say, and try to remove BlackBerrys from the committee so that we actually pay attention to witnesses, but that doesn't get me many friends. We'll go on from there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Having heard that, it is my intent at this time to move on to the question. I wanted to make sure everyone had a fair opportunity to be heard here today. If there's nothing further on the motion, I'll put it to the question.

The motion is that the consideration and examination of any bill, government or private member's, that falls within the express mandate of the committee shall take precedence over any study or non-legislative examination other than questions of privilege. In such circumstances, the non-legislative study shall be deferred until such time as the bill is reported back to the House

That was moved by Mr. Kamp.

Are we ready for the question?

(Motion negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Stoffer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Just to reiterate, we all do this except me, because I don't have one, but I notice this a lot at various committees, not just this one. The witnesses come in, and within about five minutes a fair number of us have our heads down playing with our BlackBerrys. To show deference to the witnesses, I think we should put them down, put them away or turn them off, at least during the presentation. I actually find it quite rude.

My own colleagues are just as guilty of this as anybody else. Someone is presenting, and within two or three minutes they're on their BlackBerrys and are not even paying attention to a person who has travelled all this distance to come here and make a bilingual presentation on a serious issue. As a courtesy, to show that we're actually listening as parliamentarians during the presentation--and we don't have to make this a motion--we should turn them off or pay no attention to them until after the presentation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Yes. You don't want to put that in a formal motion?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

I mention this to my colleagues as a courtesy to the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Basically what you're saying, Mr. Stoffer, is that as a courtesy to the presenters during their 10-minute presentations we should not engage in our BlackBerrys, but when you have your seven minutes it's okay.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

You do whatever you want. Nobody listens to me anyway, so it doesn't matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I think that's fair enough to ask.

Let's have one more from Monsieur Lévesque.

Monsieur Lévesque.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of information. Has a meeting of the subcommittee been scheduled to discuss the order of priorities, among other issues?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I just want to check to make sure. I'm new to this job, guys. Give me a shot here.

On Thursday I'd like to call a meeting of the subcommittee. If we could gather on Thursday morning for our regular meeting time, we could have a discussion in that direction, Monsieur Lévesque, and we will report back.

Mr. Bagnell.