Fisheries Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Okay, we'll go through them one at a time. We'll deal with each issue on an individual basis. On the first motion that I had read off earlier, the services of an analyst from the Library of Parliament, is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion as prepared, or as accepted in the previous...or is there some discussion that would like to be had at this time? Are we okay on that motion?

So I would ask for a mover to adopt that motion.

I'm sorry, Mr. Blais, I forgot you had moved it previously.

A seconder?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I second the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Now I'd like to invite the analyst from the back to come up.

The next motion we want to deal with here this morning is the subcommittee on agenda and procedure: that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be established and be composed of the chair, the two vice-chairs, a member of the other opposition party, and a member of the government party.

Are there any amendments to be proposed to this motion? Are there any concerns with this motion?

Mr. Kamp.

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

It seems to me in the last go-round this committee didn't function very well, if at all. It met only occasionally. So it's not entirely clear what its mandate is. I think we ended up just going into committee business here as the committee of the whole and discussing the same things as the subcommittee had already talked about when it did function. I think because of that we ended up not meeting very often. In fact, I think in the last session we didn't meet at all.

It might still be a good idea to strike this, but at some point we need to figure out whether it has a role and what that role is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Are there any comments?

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I wasn't on the committee in the last session, but I agree that the committee should be left in place. We should evaluate its procedure and see if we can improve it in some way down the road.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Monsieur Lévesque, do you have a comment?

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

Mr. Chairman, I always thought that the role of the subcommittee was to examine specific problems and to submit recommendations to the committee. Regardless of whether or not the makeup of the committee is changed, we can't ask the subcommittee to make the final decision, because that's up to the committee. As part of its current duties, the subcommittee must make recommendations to the committee. That's what's always been done. Of course, changes were made to subcommittee decisions on occasion, but its role is to recommend, and the committee's role is to change the subcommittee's decision whether slightly or more fully. Nevertheless, the final decision rests with the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Monsieur Blais.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On this subject, I'd like to say that I've had the opportunity to take part in subcommittee meetings. I don't know if you remember this aspect, but regardless, it enabled us to sort out some of the issues that we were going to discuss. I'm thinking in particular of the way to proceed in order to cover all of Canada, regional visits, where we'd go exactly, proposals for various scenarios for travel regarding these activities that had to do with the reports that we issued, notably on small craft harbours and the seal hunt.

Indeed, the subcommittee does not necessarily have any decision-making powers, but it is there to submit proposals, to discuss matters. This formula is a good one. There can always be some progress when there are 12 people, depending on the issue we're dealing with. However, when there's five of us—because we are talking about five people—it's much easier in a way. Moreover, we know full well that the subcommittee examines relatively specific subjects. It has happened that we've had occasion to consider future business in a more general way. As a matter of fact, we'll have occasion to do that very soon. A discussion around the wider table is more than interesting, but when the time comes to make choices or propose various scenarios, it's much more efficient with the subcommittee, in my opinion.

I agree with Mr. Kamp that the committee has its rightful place. There's no doubt that depending on the chairmanship and how our work unfolds, the subcommittee in question will have to meet more assiduously or more regularly, but that goes hand in hand with the issues we're dealing with. If we can easily have unanimity or if it's relatively easy to discuss things around the wider table, it is not necessary for the subcommittee to meet, to discuss things again, to make another decision or to propose things that have been dealt at the plenary committee. In my opinion, that's more or less the way things worked in the last Parliament. We do know that many challenges await us in this new Parliament. In my opinion, the subcommittee allows the committee to deal more easily with various issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I apologize for not being here.

I congratulate you on your election as chair of this wonderful committee. Actually, it is a great committee. I certainly welcome the opportunity to be back with Mr. MacAulay, Mr. Blais, Mr. Lévesque and Mr. Stoffer, and of course my colleagues here. I'm looking forward to continuing the work that this committee does on behalf of the fisheries and fishers across our country.

Given the interest now, past experience has been that we've used the subcommittee--in the time that I've been on this committee--very little, but it has proven to be useful from time to time when it was deemed necessary to do so.

Given the context, that the committee does decide and is not locked into any decisions that the subcommittee makes, that it simply makes recommendations to the committee, and given the fact that the structure of Parliament has changed, I was wondering if I could put forward a friendly amendment to what we currently have there. If you read the motion from the 39th Parliament, it said that it shall be “composed of the Chair, the two Vice-Chairs, a member of the other opposition party”, which would have been Mr. Stoffer, “and a member [at large] of the Government party”. That was fairly restrictive, and I'd be curious to see what the comments would be. There has to be the vice-chair, but if it's the chair and the vice-chair, sometimes that makes things.... I think we should have a chair for obvious reasons, but I'm wondering if having the vice-chairs or making it necessary for the vice-chairs to be there is absolutely necessary.

I would propose that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be composed of the chair, the parliamentary secretary, a member from the government party, and a member from each of the other opposition parties.

In the last session it worked out that there would be a member from the opposition parties and a member from the governing party, and the opposition parties would have basically the majority on voting procedure in that subcommittee. We're proposing the same thing. It's really no different except that we're simply adding another government member. This would mean we would have three opposition party members and two government members, so the opposition parties would simply be allowed to.... I would recommend that Mr. Kamp be allowed to go to the subcommittee as well simply because the feedback and the advice he could provide to the subcommittee would be most valuable. However, that would be the maximum composition of the subcommittee.

I also propose that the quorum of the subcommittee consist of at least three of those six members, one of whom must be from the government and at least one of whom must be from the opposition, and that each member of the subcommittee be permitted to have one assistant attend any meetings of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

I'd be curious to get feedback from my colleagues on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

We'll now go to Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you. I'm a new member of Parliament as well as a new member of this committee. It's an honour for me to be here among you, many of whom are members with many years of experience.

I notice that this committee is called “Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure”. However, the document doesn't mention anything about the purpose of this subcommittee. Is it to plan the agenda and procedure or is it something else?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I understand from the clerk that this is the title that's been given to the subcommittee by virtue of its parliamentary tradition. It's informally known as the steering committee. That's basically drawn from tradition.

Are you okay on that, Mr. Weston?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Does that mean it can't deal with anything besides agenda and procedure?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

It's there as a steering committee, but it can do basically whatever the committee as a whole empowers the subcommittee to do.

Is there anything further, Mr. Weston?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

No, that's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Stoffer.

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

I have just a comment. The reality is that the parliamentary secretary can be a member of the governing party. You don't have to specify.

I'd just remind the committee that this same agenda procedure is in most other committees, and it is adopted within about 30 seconds of its being on the table. I haven't been to a committee in a long time other than fisheries that has discussed this at this length.

Keep it the way it is. If Mr. Kamp wishes to be a member of the governing party to shoulder the subcommittee, I have no problems with that whatsoever, but you don't need to redefine and make it specific. It says “a member of the governing party”, and that person can well be Mr. Kamp.

We should call the question, move the adoption, and move on. Otherwise we're going to be here until five o'clock.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

There are a couple of other speakers first.

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I basically agree with Mr. Stoffer.

There's normally just one member from each party. In the last committee—we met this morning—we allowed the parliamentary secretary to come as a non-voting member because he often can add some very interesting information. But because he's a member of the government you normally wouldn't have him as a voting member.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Monsieur Lévesque.

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

For my part, I see the subcommittee as a committee that is useful for solving problems. Its mandate comes from the standing committee to which it reports. With regard to the presence of the parliamentary secretary, we feel in other committees that this person is a good source of information for the subcommittee on occasion. However, if another government member is already present, the parliamentary secretary loses his right to vote or replaces the other member. He can be present but he doesn't have the right to vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Are there any further comments?

Monsieur Blais.