Fisheries Committee on Oct. 6th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I call this meeting to order.

I believe the second report from the steering committee, the subcommittee, has been circulated for your approval this morning. I'd like to put that on the table and get approval on the subcommittee report before we begin other business.

Are there any questions, concerns?

Monsieur Blais.

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

I just want to point out that when the steering committee met, we had a little trouble making decisions because we were missing two members, from the Liberals and the NDP. So the steering committee really did not make any decisions. We had discussions, but we agreed that we had to redo the meeting.

I intend to find a method that takes into account the timeline and the fact that the Liberals are going to put forward a motion on this issue. I am interested in hearing from the witnesses here today, but also from the minister. Could we agree to devote the first hour of Thursday's meeting to the minister and to related or other discussions? The second hour would be to make a decision on the Notice of Motion, or the motion, that may be moved by the Liberals today.

Remember that October 19 is the deadline. Since we will be on break next week, it would be a good idea to take the time to hear from people, especially the minister. We also have to leave enough time to consider the motion carefully and ensure that this is done properly. I think we should spend the first hour of Thursday's meeting hearing from the minister's witnesses and the second hour, debating the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Monsieur Blais.

Mr. Byrne.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've received the input from our colleague, and I have a motion that I've tabled with the clerk. The motion surrounds an issue that has to be put or resolved by the House by October 19, 2009. That's the date that's been established by the government to receive consultation from the House on the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, otherwise known as the revised NAFO convention.

That deadline is rapidly approaching. We've made a few attempts in the House itself, among the House leadership, to get this on the floor of the House; notwithstanding that that was not successful, we're dealing with the committee right now. The House breaks next week and then resumes the following week. In other words, this issue has to be resolved. In order for it to actually enter the House and for the House to actually use the report of the committee, as I recommend in my motion, to either concur or not concur in the report of the committee, we are facing some very serious time constraints.

I would like to ask if there is a procedural way, perhaps through another motion at this committee, whereby we can at least guarantee that my motion will be voted upon prior to the conclusion of Thursday's meeting. What Mr. Blais is suggesting is to use this meeting to hear witnesses and Thursday afternoon to hear witnesses for the first hour. Then, of course, we could indeed go to discussion of my motion, but there would be absolutely no guarantee that the actual motion will be put at the Thursday meeting, because of course we could talk this out for a long time.

So let's test the good faith.

Is there a procedural way—I'll ask the clerk, through you, Mr. Chair—that we can establish that the question has to be put on my motion prior to the conclusion of Thursday's meeting?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Before we proceed with Mr. Byrne's request on the motion he intends to lay on the table, I'd like to deal with the subcommittee report.

Is there any further discussion on the report of the subcommittee?

Mr. Blais' point was very well put. Because of attendance at the subcommittee, we didn't deal with any business beyond what we discussed on Thursday of last week to deal with this week. We will have a further subcommittee meeting to discuss future business beyond this week at a time when it's more convenient for all.

On the report of the subcommittee, do I have a motion to move the report? It is moved by Mr. Stoffer and seconded by Monsieur Lévesque.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Byrne, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

If the clerk hasn't done so already, could my motion be circulated?

Mr. Chair, I understand that procedurally this can be addressed immediately as it relates to a matter that's currently before the committee.

In the spirit of cooperation, I would be prepared to entertain a compromise to allow the minister to appear before us on Thursday afternoon. I would propose that in order to guarantee that at least this motion be dealt with in a timely matter, i.e., by the close of normal committee time on Thursday, that the matter be put in its entirety and decided upon prior to 5:30 on Thursday.

Taking into consideration any procedural matters that could delay that, i.e., amendments and so on, I would forego discussion and debate on this particular motion until the conclusion of the minister's appearance, for the final hour of committee business on Thursday, if the committee would pass a motion providing assurance that my motion would be put and decided upon by close of normal committee business on Thursday.

I believe the clerk may have some ideas as to how that could be arranged. I would be prepared to do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

If I understand it correctly, Mr. Byrne is asking two questions today.

The first motion being put forward is the motion before you. I won't read that at this point in time. He's putting forward a motion. A second motion would follow that all questions be put no later than 5:30 on Thursday and providing for one hour of debate just before.

Just so we're clear, I'll break it down. We would hear the witnesses and have discussion on the witnesses' testimony today. We would hear the minister and deputy on Thursday, for one hour, and then we would debate the motion. The motion we will debate first this afternoon is that all questions be put no later than 5:30 on Thursday.

Does everybody understand what has been asked?

Mr. Kamp.

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

I'm sorry, I was daydreaming there for a moment. Are you saying that there's going to be a motion today about a motion on Thursday?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

The first motion that would be discussed would be a motion to have all questions put no later than 5:30 on Thursday, provided we hear the debate today.

Sorry, it's kind of complex. He's putting forward a motion, and then a second motion to follow this one to ask that all motions be put no later than Thursday at 5:30, providing that we have the minister appear on Thursday for the first hour. The second hour would be debate on all questions, and all questions would be put on this motion.

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

Are you saying that procedural motion is going to be moved and debated today?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

That's what we would have debate on right now, that procedural motion.

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

With all the regular rules of debate, I understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Yes.

What Mr. Byrne is moving is that he puts the motion forward, and he will waive debate, if that's correct, on this motion until the second hour on Thursday, provided the first motion, the motion that I outlined, with the questions being put on Thursday, is passed today.

Does that make sense? It's clear as mud?

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

Mr. Chair, you've ruled that procedural motion is in order, for moving and debate today?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

That's the advice I have, that this procedure is in order.

Do I hear any discussion on the motion about the questions being put no later than Thursday at 5:30?

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Call me crazy if you like, sir, but technically the meeting finishes at 5:30.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Our meeting is scheduled to go from 3:30 to 5:30 on Thursday afternoon.

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

Right. So at 5:30, if the question then gets put--it's just a matter of timing--you could technically hit the gavel and the question wouldn't be asked. So should it not be 5:20, 5:25, in order to have the vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I suppose, technically, you could go....

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

It's a little conspiracy theory, that's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I understand what you're saying. The way I put it forward, and I believe Mr. Byrne and I had that discussion, was that the question be put no later than 5:30.

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

And decided on?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Yes, the question would be put and voted upon, sorry.

There you go. I see what you're getting at. I'm a little slow, but I get it eventually.

Monsieur Blais.

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

I am not trying to make things difficult. I just want to explain what brought us to this point. This proposal is further to my suggestion.

There are two options. The first is that, in light of the procedure, we discuss the proposal immediately after hearing from the witnesses and vote today. Personally, I would prefer to hear what the minister has to say about this issue before we vote. In fact, if the motion is not agreed to, procedure dictates that we vote today instead of Thursday, or around 5:15 p.m. or 5:20 p.m., depending on how things go. That is the idea. Either we hear from the minister before we debate the motion, or we do not. The purpose of the motion is to give the minister a chance to have a say before we make a decision. That is why I asked that we put off making the decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Monsieur Blais.

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Kamp.