Fisheries Committee on Oct. 19th, 2010

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I'll defer to Mr. Blais.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Monsieur Blais.

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

I just want to check and see if I can move an amendment at this time. I'd like to know if, from a procedural standpoint, moving an amendment would be in order. The purpose of this amendment, as I noted earlier, would be to have the committee hear from witnesses to decide whether or not a study is warranted, rather than to proceed right away with a study.

I'm trying to figure out the right way to go about this. I could move an amendment to substitute the word “hearing” for the word “study”. Once we've heard from witnesses, we would have ample time to think and consider a study, if one is warranted. One solution would be to substitute the word “hearing” for the word “study”.

I could also move another amendment. I'll see which option is feasible. This amendment would call for the committee to hear from witnesses and to decide subsequently, based on what they have to say, if a study is warranted.

So then, what I would like to know first is whether, from a procedural standpoint, an amendment calling for the word “study” to be replaced by the word “hearing” is in order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

It is procedurally in order to remove the words “undertake a study” and replace them with “hold a hearing” or “hold a meeting”. My question is whether it would be “a meeting” or “meetings”? Is it plural?

Mr. Blais.

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

Therefore, I move that the words “undertake a study” be replaced by the words “hold a hearing”.

I was thinking that we could hold a two-hour meeting where we could hear from the people directly affected by the problem as well as from departmental officials. Having experienced this personally, I know that occasionally, both parties aren't free at the same time. If necessary, we could schedule two one-hour meetings.

It may be that departmental officials are not available to testify on the same day as band council members, or vice versa. The hearings could then be scheduled over two days, that is to say, we could plan on having two one-hour meetings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

So what you are trying to get at is you want to have one complete meeting, whether it happens on one specific day or not.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

So a two-hour session dedicated to this topic?

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

That is what I am proposing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

So you are proposing to move an amendment.

It is moved by Mr. Blais that the motion be amended by replacing the words “undertake a study” with the words “holding a two-hour hearing”. Is that acceptable?

On the amendment. Mr. Weston.

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

I would love to think that in two hours our committee could gain a grasp of the economic consequences of the proposed mine and the environmental significance, the sacredness to the aboriginal people, the species of fish involved, and the longevity of whatever fishery happens to occur in this body of water. I'd love to know what the different fisheries people have said about it, the environmental assessors at the federal and provincial levels, and to ask all the questions we need to ask after hearing the testimony from all the witnesses that we ought to hear from. But to hear only a little bit of the story strikes me as doing way more harm than good.

If we're going to do this, I'd say we go back to the steering committee and set aside all of the plans that have been made. If we're going to do this, we have to do this, but we can't do it a little bit. It just strikes me as irresponsible to hear a tiny bit of one side of a many-faceted story.

As I said earlier, I consider Fin to be a reasonable man, and I think this is an incredibly interesting issue, but for us to dedicate the resources we need to understand it would require a huge investment of time. There's an asymmetry involved between the resources required and the effect we might have on something that's in the hands of cabinet. Fisheries is only one small part.

So I just don't see why we would embark down this Lambeth Walk so late in this stage.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Weston.

Mr. Cannan.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's my first chance to speak to this committee. I've been sitting here listening for the last hour, and I just want to go back to two things.

First of all, the purpose of the steering committee, I understand, was to set out the work plan of the committee, and reading all the documentation that the department and the Library of Parliament and all the rest have provided to the clerk, my understanding is that in April of this year the committee had wanted to initiate a study of the snow crab industry in Atlantic Canada, and that was the priority of the committee, to continue with that particular study.

Now we've brought in this motion, and I have two thoughts. One is the fact that if the cabinet votes to turn down the application, all this is a waste of time, and if they do vote to proceed, then we can bring in all the parties to have a discussion. As my colleague Mr. Weston said, my riding is a couple of hours away from this area, in the interior and the northern part of British Columbia. It's not only a very interesting issue, but it's a very complex issue, there are many partners, and the evaluation has been ongoing for many years. To spend two hours is just a mockery of the whole system.

So I think it would be a disservice to the committee and the integrity of this committee to proceed in this fashion. If you're going to do a study, you do it in depth and you have all the parties and invite everybody or you wait till the process unfolds and then have a post-mortem.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Cannan.

Mr. Kamp.

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

Yes, I agree with my colleagues on this issue, not surprisingly. It's just impossible to feel that we've covered this in a couple of hours. I would be in favour if this motion said we have one meeting and we call in DFO officials to gain an understanding of their involvement in the environmental review process related to Taseko's Prosperity mine. That I would agree with, because it never hurts for us to know what their involvement is. They are a responsible authority in this, along with Transport Canada, and in 2007 they referred this to Environment Canada to conduct a review panel and then participate in that.

So that's largely what they would tell us. I think we can certainly all read the report. It's online, available to be read. It's a lengthy one, and you can certainly see what DFO's involvement was there.

So I would support that kind of a two-hour meeting where we talk to DFO officials, but I think we certainly cannot think we have covered the issue by calling in the first nations involved, because they will probably tell us how they were consulted or weren't consulted, and then we would have to hear from the proponents themselves, with their view of how they were involved in the whole process, but certainly their involvement with the first nations. There are local people like the mayor and council of Williams Lake, the closest major community to this project, who would probably want to be heard, as well as other environmental groups that would want to have their say as well.

I think the point we need to understand is that we either study it or we don't, but if we just want to hear from DFO officials and find out first of all what their role was in this, what advice they gave the panel and so on, I'm okay with that, but to hear just a little bit of this.... As a British Columbian who has followed this with some interest, this is a pretty complex issue, as Mr. Cannan has said, and not one that we could do justice to in a couple of hours.

So at the very least, if this passes in this form--I hope it doesn't; the amendment, I think, improves it a little bit. It seems to me we need to specify in some way that it goes back to the steering committee to figure out what happens in these two hours and who is going to be heard. We can't just assume that what we've heard from Mr. Donnelly is that first nations have asked to come. A lot of people ask to come to this committee, and we don't hear from them all because we just can't. So somebody, I would suggest the subcommittee, would have to make a decision on how we fill those two hours most effectively, and fairly, I think, as well.

But as a point of order, is this amendment on the floor? Has it been moved or is it just being talked about?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

We are debating the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Kamp.

Monsieur Lévesque.

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

Mr. Chair, John is basically admitting something he wasn't keen on earlier, namely that he would have preferred a study. Raynald's amendment calls for the committee to hear from the parties concerned by the request made to Fin. A client contacted Fin and asked to testify before the committee and to hear the department's take on this particular matter.

First, we debated the initial motion which called for the committee to undertake a study. The Conservative Party objected to that and gave some valid, logical reasons for doing so. All that to say that we were also put in a difficult position.

However, the committee first should decide whether a study is warranted and Fin's motion should go forward. Once the committee has heard from both parties concerned, then it could decide whether or not it needs to undertake a study. At least we will hear what the parties have to say and their reasons for requesting a study. If we find that there is no reason for doing a study, then that will be the end of it. Perhaps both parties will have been able to explain their respective positions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Lévesque.

Go ahead, Mr. Blais.

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

I don't have much to more to add to what Mr. Lévesque said. However, I am somewhat perplexed by the arguments made by Mr. Weston and Mr. Kamp, but not so much by those of Mr. Cannan. They argue that this is too complex an issue to be studied by the committee. However, just prior to that, they said that the committee should not undertake a study, that caution is in order. I'm proposing that we do proceed with caution by first calling witnesses.

Unless the subject-matter is so obvious that the committee can undertake a study immediately, before making a decision to go forward with one, the first step is to invite witnesses to testify. This would help us to decide if there is a valid reason for going forward, to hear from representatives of certain groups, and to better understand what is at stake here. Are we saying that the issue is too complex that we won't be able to decide based strictly on the testimony of witnesses? Basically, that is the gist of the amendment.

The idea behind the amendment is to put the brakes on plans to undertake a study because some people are not sure that a study is even necessary. Mr. Kamp and Mr. Weston have argued that a study is needed, and so they should have voted accordingly from the outset. That's why I'm somewhat perplexed.

Holding hearings would be the first step. We could then decide what we want to do. WIth the facts, committee members will be able to engage in a far more enlightened discussion. Otherwise we would have to rely on what people are telling us now. A hearing would let the representatives of first nations or of band councils know that we are interested and prepared to examine this whole matter. However, it would not automatically mean that we are ready to undertake a study because this is not a current priority, according to our calendar.

The committee's current priority is to conclude its study of the crab fishery and then, to hold additional hearings on aquaculture. Those are our priorities. But there is no reason why we can't make room on our calendar for some hearings. Moreover, hearings have already been scheduled.

You may recall that we are planning a meeting with the minister. There is also the possibility of calling Mr. Bevan to testify, and of examining other potential issues. Besides, the work plan agreed to be the steering committee...

For Mr. Cannan's information—and perhaps this will also give me an opportunity to say what I think about the work of the steering committee—I think the steering committee's job is to set the work agenda. Its job is not to make decisions or to hear testimony as such. Quite simply, it is more restricted in nature. Members from each political party serve on the steering committee, which does not call witnesses. Discussion moves at a much quicker pace that it does in the larger main committee and any decision made by the steering committee must be approved, or rejected, by the main committee.

The proof is that the steering committee has drawn up a work plan that cannot be implemented without the approval of the main committee. Unless the steering committee receives a very specific mandate from the main committee, it does not have the authority to decide for itself on a particular course of action. It must wait to meet with the main committee to see whether the work plan it has devised, or the decision it has made can... We've seen cases in the past where the steering committee's decision has been vetoed by the main committee. This can happen on occasion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Monsieur Blais.

Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to add to the discussion in a way that I hope will provide some suggestion for clarifying the scope of what we are attempting to do and perhaps address some of the reasonable concerns from across the aisle.

This is a complex project. It has a lot of aspects for the economic well-being of the local communities, but it also has concerns around the environmental aspects, as the panel has concluded.

My understanding about the motion is that it is really focused on the fisheries and fish habitat issues. So when we are thinking about who might come forward to spend two hours with our committee so that we can judge whether a further study is necessary, I would propose that the study would be around the fish and fish habitat issues and not try to duplicate a panel that had dozens of hearings across 30 days in British Columbia.

We are not trying to duplicate that work. What we're trying to ascertain is whether there are concerns about our responsibilities with respect to understanding and providing feedback towards the effective governance of the Fisheries Act by DFO or whether there are concerns about the adequacy of the research on the fish and fish habitat and concerns about the capacity of DFO to have been part of the panel and to have been as effective as possible in presenting the science and the case around fish and fish habitat.

I would propose that the scope of this meeting really be linked to fish and fish habitat. I'm not sure that the mayor of Williams Lake, who has very relevant and important things to say about the economy of Williams Lake and the local area, would be a necessary input into two hours of hearing about the fish and fish habitat processes, resources, research results, concerns, and how it fits into the decision the cabinet will be making.

On the other hand, the first nations are very involved in fish and fish habitat. The first nations in this area, it's my understanding, are among the very few groups that were never assigned a reserve area that would be a small part of their claimed traditional territory; they actually still fully occupy their traditional claim territory, and while they have numerous economic involvements with the local economy, a strong part of their internal band economy is hunting and fishing and a dependence on the resources of the land. So this is a group that has been there for hundreds of years and will have something to contribute on the issues of fish and fish habitat. And there may be other groups besides the minister, the department, and first nations that have been discussed.

My proposal is that in determining who would come to that first hearing, that would be the criteria: can they contribute to that? To do a further study, we would determine whether there are gaps in what's been brought forward, how and with what resources, to really do justice to our responsibility around fish and fish habitat.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Ms. Murray.

Mr. Allen.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There are a couple of points I would like to make. I think Monsieur Blais, with all due respect, might have missed the point that Mr. Kamp and Mr. Weston were making. It is a complex file. The point is to pick two stakeholder groups, whether it be DFO and the first nations communities, in two hours. We're just picking two stakeholder groups on a complex issue, and then looking to make a decision as to whether you move on based on that, when there are various other stakeholders that might have some input into whether the committee wants to study it again.

All we've been saying on this side is that the responsible thing to do is to consider this after a decision has been made by the cabinet about the right way to go ahead.

I think Joyce made one good point there when she said it's important to scope out very clearly what we're going to be doing in two hours and who the witnesses will be. We can go on and continue, and I'm prepared to....

I think Mr. Blais' amendment that we hold a two-hour hearing is a start, as Randy has said. But I think the prudent thing for us to do, as the DFO and the fisheries committee, is to look at DFO's response and their role as a participant in this process. That's fair ball, and I'm very open to doing that type of thing.

Otherwise we have to look at the motion about holding a two-hour hearing, with the scope being decided by the subcommittee on agenda and procedure as to proposed witnesses, and bring them forward for these two hours. If we're willing to look at a possible amendment to bring in DFO officials for the two hours to look at their role as a participant in this process in the development of the panel report, that would be prudent to do. But that's where I would cut it off; otherwise it wouldn't be responsible for us to not have a balanced view of all the stakeholder opinions in this.

Unless we're going down that road, I'm prepared to start making subamendments to amendments already, to ensure we focus this on those two hours very clearly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

But these will be amendments, not big procedural issues. I'll just make subamendments.