Fisheries Committee on April 21st, 2010

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

Quite frankly, I also am prepared to support this motion as amended, but certainly not on the basis of the arguments made by Gerry as to how to proceed concerning integrity. It will certainly not be on that basis. I am well aware that it is important to study this kind of an issue. I also used the word “crisis” on this file, because it is indeed one. It has that scope.

I will give you some figures. Sometimes, we talk about thousands of lost jobs, and at some point in time we end up wondering what that means. We have the impression that when we are talking about 100,000 jobs, it is more important than when we are talking about 50,000 jobs, etc. In the regions, we understand very well that the job numbers are smaller because the population is smaller. I represent a riding of 84,000 people. Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands have a population of 97,000 people. In the Montreal region, there are 2 million people. I just want to give you some perspective: the thousand jobs that are seriously or less seriously affected, as the case may be, in the Gaspé and Magdalen Islands region would equal 24,000 jobs in Montreal.

Therefore, we can well understand that if 24,000 jobs were suddenly to disappear or be at risk of disappearing in Montreal—or 35,000 jobs in Toronto—there would be some committee somewhere that would study that and there would be a great uproar. In fact, we saw that already with the automobile sector. It seems to me that we should be doing the same thing.

That is why the way in which the motion was originally worded was a problem for me, as I was saying. The way it now reads will allow me to be more open to supporting it. In fact, after having discussed it, Gérard and I will also I believe support it. However, it is also with the intention—and it is important to mention this—of adding something that, if memory serves me well, was requested by the crab fishermen from these regions because of this situation. The crab fishermen asked the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to study the issue of management of the crab resource. The official request is either already being put on the commissioner's desk or will be soon. I have not seen the exact wording, but I am well aware that this is what the crab fishermen intend to do.

However, the problem is much broader in scope than that. Yes, this affects the crab fishermen, and it affects all of the communities. It is a problem that any department, a few days before the opening of the season, coldly announces a 63% reduction without talking about any measures. I know that discussions are currently underway, I'm well aware of that, and thank goodness. On that issue, I can say that the minister is doing a good job: she is trying, along with others, to help with costs and lessen the impacts.

However, those impacts are enormous. This story, compared to others such as the aquaculture or sockeye salmon stories or others, these are quite dramatic from certain perspectives because it affects the communities. I am not trying to suggest that one community is more important than another. We have already had the opportunity of studying various issues, and we will continue to do so.

Given the events and the amendments announced for this motion, we will be in a position to support it. I do not know how we will articulate this study, because it is broad and deals with one subject in particular. That is another kind of challenge, but we are already dealing with so many. We will support this motion, and our support is intended to emphasize the issue, because it is important for our communities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate all of the input from my colleagues on this.

I want to ask you a technical question. I'm interested in moving an amendment to the amendment. Do we need to do it now? How does that happen procedurally?

We're now in a debate on the amendment. Can I amend the amended version?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

It is possible for you to propose a subamendment, but the words of the subamendment must be specific to the words that have either been added to or deleted from the amended motion.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Okay. I will then have to move an amendment after we've dealt with this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

I'll call the question.

It was moved by Mr. MacAulay that the motion be amended by substituting the words “snow crab industry” for “shellfish industry”, deleting all the words after Quebec and up to and including Labrador, and adding the word “and”.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I would now like to move an amendment to the amended version:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, after completing its study on aquaculture on the west coast, study the shellfish industry, etc.

I guess it's not the “shellfish industry”; it's the “snow crab industry”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Yes. We'll get that down and then read it back.

All right, I think we're getting there.

It's been moved by Mr. Calkins that after the words “Fisheries and Oceans” we insert the words “after completing its study on aquaculture”. So the amended motion would read:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, after completing its study on aquaculture, study the snow crab industry in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, and that the committee report to the House on its findings and conclusions.

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, what I heard Mr. Calkins say was “aquaculture on the west coast”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I'll read it one more time.

The amended motion would read:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, after completing its study on aquaculture on the west coast, study the snow crab industry in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, and that the committee report to the House on its findings and conclusions.

On the amendment, Mr. Byrne.

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

Philosophically, I fully understand exactly what the amendment, or mover, is attempting to achieve. It seems to create a sense of order to our work plan. The reality, however, is that it actually provides for disorder. Let me explain how and why.

It's usually the prerogative of the chair to call witnesses on another topic if, for example, at a point in time on a given Monday or Wednesday afternoon we actually have some time to fill because we don't have any witnesses appearing on the aquaculture issue. We have the option then of being able to call witnesses and to use that time slot, rather than simply not meeting or meeting on some other innocuous topic. The chair would have the ability to fill that time by hearing from witnesses on another study topic.

If we pass this amendment, the chair will no longer have that latitude, because we will have to complete the aquaculture study before we can engage in any discussion on the crab issue. That's exactly what the motion means. So on that basis, not because I don't want to do the proper work on the west coast aquaculture industry, I do not want to impede the capacity of the chair to conduct meetings in an efficient and effective way and, when available or necessary, to be able to use time slots to hear witnesses on other topics.

So I won't be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Are there any further comments?

Mr. Weston.

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

Thank you.

Well, I welcomed the amendment immediately partly because I was concerned about leaving behind any community. I think this is a committee that really tries to listen, and whether it's seals in Monsieur Blais' riding or lobsters on the east coast or salmon on the west coast, there is a sincere commitment here. So I had some misgivings about opposing the motion that actually passed. I like this. The reason I opposed Gerry's motion was we were onto something relevant that really matters to Canadians. Whether you're on the west coast or not, people care about aquaculture and the salmon.

I think there's a cost-effectiveness involved. When we interrupt our flow, we hurt our cost-effectiveness, and I'm always considering how valuable am I to the taxpayer, how valuable we are as a committee to the taxpayer.

And related to those things is focus. So I'm thinking, “What would Canadians want?” I think Canadians would want us to finish what we're involved in, because it's relevant and it's important, and then by all means we should get onto the community that Gerry is talking about.

So I like the amendment, and unless I can be persuaded to the contrary.... Even though it's Mr. Calkins who raised it, I still like the amendment and I'm going to be supporting it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Are there any further comments?

Mr. Donnelly.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I see where the amendment is going. I think it makes sense. However, I think it does add a bit of complexity now to the situation. I'm hopeful that we get to the discussion of the work plan, planning of future business.

Again, I reiterate that we have accomplished a number of things on our work plan to date, and the remaining items, at least that I've seen on the work plan, are this discussion of the estimates, the Fisheries Act, eco-certification, and of course there is interest on the west coast aquaculture. So I see this as a large number. I mean, given that this motion has been passed and we're now going to look, I believe, at the east coast, I guess I would like to ask a clarifying question: how long do we see these studies taking? Is it possible that we could look at doing these studies and looking at all the other work plan items in one year?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

It's a good question, Mr. Donnelly. Obviously the next part of our business today would be to discuss, based on our meeting the other day, the scope and the timelines that might be involved in that.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't know if the mover can clarify what he was thinking in terms of the number of meetings that would be allocated to each, or to at least this, in order to get some clarity, because that's the information I think I would need to be able to support this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Byrne.

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

One of our colleagues raised the point about efficiency of taxpayers' dollars and the valuable use of the time of members of Parliament. Perhaps he didn't quite understand the context of the specific statement I was making.

If the amendment as currently proposed passes, Mr. Chair, you will not able to call any witnesses on any other topics, even if we have free time as a committee. One hundred percent of our time has to be spent exclusively on the west coast aquaculture industry, if I'm reading the motion correctly. That is not a bad thing, especially if 100% of our time can be used for west coast aquaculture issues.

Past experience has taught each and every one of us that there are moments and occasions when scheduling conflicts with key witnesses do occur, and that we do indeed have open time, time made available through nobody's fault; it's just that witnesses were not available.

We have ended up cancelling meetings in the past--our regular scheduled Monday or Wednesday afternoon meetings--because we don't have witnesses to hear from. If we pass this motion, it precludes the chair from using that free time to call witnesses on another issue. That's not a very productive use of taxpayers' dollars or MPs' precious time.

When you vote for this--if you're true to those principles--bear in mind that locking us into the study of one issue, and one issue only, may seem very positive in spirit towards the needs of those of our stakeholders in the west coast aquaculture industry, but it's not being very true to the needs of taxpayers, who expect that if we do indeed have free time, we use that time as beneficially, efficiently, and effectively as possible.

I don't think those taxpayers that we're protecting would want to hear we're taking a Wednesday afternoon off because we don't have anybody to hear from because of a scheduling conflict, when we could be doing other business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Kamp.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That's a bit of a stretch to say this motion somehow precludes the chair from filling a meeting that wouldn't otherwise be filled. We have motions about work plans that list in order the things we do, but then we go completely out of order. I guess in every one of those cases, the chair has kind of violated the motion that the committee has passed. In fact, we've done that already in the last week or two. So I think that's a huge stretch.

On the other hand, if he's concerned about that, and I'm not, then if this amendment passes, as I think it should, and if he wants another amendment to this twice-amended motion along the lines of, “with the understanding that the chair can call witnesses on any other topic if there are open meetings”, then we're happy to do that. We're not trying to keep some discussion of this away.

This is about priority for us to start on this study on aquaculture, which is a very serious issue on the west coast, as those of us who are from there know. We've already gotten going and heard some testimony. We've already interrupted our study on eco-certification. We've had many letters from I don't know how many people who want to talk to us on this issue. I don't know how many letters we've received on the crab issue. I haven't seen any yet. There might be some, but I'm quite sure we haven't received the volume we have on the aquaculture issue. I think it behoves us as those who do things in some kind of intentional form and order to carry on with aquaculture.

This motion is simply saying at this point that we are really clarifying our work plan and that if we pass this motion our discussion will be done and for the foreseeable future our order will be giving priority to aquaculture, which we're going to follow with a study on crab. That, to me, makes eminent sense.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Kamp.

Mrs. O'Neill-Gordon.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to say that, as we all know, this certainly does affect some of my area. I have spoken with fishermen and I have expressed my sympathy for their loss, their reduction, which mainly leads to a loss of workers and of jobs. This is a big concern of mine.

I also have met with the minister. As she has explained to all of us, the fishermen were asked to take a lower quota last year due to the reduction of biomass, and they didn't do that. Therefore, this year there is definitely going to be a bigger impact. I can see that.

I also know that our government is working to provide other means of job sharing and employment benefits, and is working with the fishermen and the processors to help a little bit. It's not as much as we'd like to see done, but it is a lot.

What I don't understand is how this sudden study of the snow crab industry is going to help our fishermen right now any more than what our government is about to do. With our process and our plan all in mind, I prefer to go ahead and finish our plan, then certainly go back to study the snow crab industry and be ready for the next year or whenever we can help them. Personally, I don't see where our dropping everything to study the snow crab is going to do these fishermen, the workers, or the processors any good, any more than what we can give them now.

For that reason, I'll be voting for the new motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Byrne.