Fisheries Committee on Oct. 19th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I'll call the meeting to order.

Mr. Donnelly, I believe you have a motion that you'd like to bring forward at this point in time. The floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll just read out the motion that's in front of the committee for October 4, 2010:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans undertake a study

--and, I would add, a limited study--

of the Fish Lake/Taseko mine project to determine if DFO's response is in keeping with its mandate to prohibit the “harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat” (Section 35(1), Fisheries Act) and the “deposit of a deleterious substance in waters frequented by fish” (Section 36(3), Fisheries Act); that the Minister and relevant officials as well as stakeholder groups be called to testify.

I so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Donnelly.

You've heard the motion. The motion has been tabled. Ample notice of it was given. Are there any questions or thoughts?

Mr. Kamp.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a number of problems with this motion. First of all is the process. I think it would have been appropriate to discuss this at the steering committee, and then it could have been worked into the work plan. Only moments ago we passed the third report from the subcommittee, which included a work plan, and this wasn't in it. I know there's always the possibility--and I'm okay with that--of putting things into the work plan after we pass it, but I think it would have been better for the steering committee members to have discussed this first.

The second problem I have is with the word “study”. Fin said he wants it to be a small study in some way, but that's not up to him, frankly; it's up to this committee. And once we decide to study this, we have to study it fairly. As with every issue, there's more than one side to this. So I think it would be difficult for this to be a one-day study, for example. I think it would go beyond that.

My bigger problem is with the notion that we're going to be studying DFO's response. For one thing, it's not in DFO's hands at this point. It's in cabinet's hands. The province did its own environmental study and came up with a conclusion. It actually approved the project provincially and has begun to issue provincial authorizations and so on that are required provincially.

The federal government had an environmental review panel, which is actually under the authority of the environment minister and not the DFO minister. That review panel did significant work. In fact, it had more than 30 days of public hearings in 10 different communities, and certainly DFO participated in those and gave its information. At the end of that, the environmental review panel concluded that there are adverse environmental impacts to the study, both environmental and social, largely with respect to first nations, and it concluded that the plan didn't adequately compensate for those. That was the review panel's sort of “Coles Notes” conclusion, and then the panel report goes to cabinet.

Cabinet has had it for some time now and will respond in due course to that. So DFO is not the one responding to this. The cabinet will be responding to that panel report and hasn't yet. So I guess at the core of it, it just seems premature to study this when we don't know what the government's response to this will be.

It would be difficult for us to vote for this. There are other reasons as well. The motion's outline of DFO's mandate isn't exactly accurate, because the legislation, in addition to what he's quoted here, does allow for authorization of harmful alterations as well by the minister. In fact, that's a normal part of the process in any development, big or small, within all of our communities.

I think either this motion should be defeated or there should be a motion to reconsider it after the cabinet has actually rendered a decision on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Kamp.

Mr. Weston.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For starters, this is a very interesting proposal coming from a very reasonable man, but I wonder how effective we would be.

What's our effectiveness?

If jurisdictions are not respected, and if the timing isn't right, we run the risk of

wasting our time and not focusing on the things we can actually get done.

As an MP, personally speaking, I increasingly find that what I say no to is more important than what I say yes to. I think that as a committee we have to resist the temptation of diving into something that indeed is interesting to all of us, I know, but is not our focus and is beyond what our steering committee has set up.

If we finish the things that have already been scheduled, we'll have accomplished much, and if we spread ourselves thinly by immediately getting distracted by an issue over which we may have no influence, it will be a shame. So I would respectfully suggest that we not adopt this resolution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Weston.

Mr. Cuzner.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I've had an opportunity to speak with Fin regarding his motion, and I appreciate the spirit of why the motion was brought forward. I think good points were raised on the other side with regard to the allocation of time. I think we could probably accommodate the time, but again, within the responsibility of this committee, we don't want to be perceived as being a committee that is going to start to weigh in on every environmental assessment that's taken place across the country.

But given that DFO is a stakeholder in the review panel, I think the gist of what I got from Fin was that he wanted to get a sense as to whether or not DFO had the tools at its disposal to do a proper assessment from its perspective. That was what I took from our discussion. I see that as being important and relevant.

But I tend to agree with the comments made earlier about maybe not defeating this motion but deferring it and waiting to see the outcome of the cabinet decision and the response received from the cabinet decision.

I would think this is where we would want to be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Cuzner.

Monsieur Blais.

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

I have a comment, and then a question.

When the matter was raised by the steering committee, and even earlier in the course of bilateral discussions, we talked about hearing from witnesses connected with this issue. When I voiced my opinion, I indicated that it was a good idea, and almost mandatory, for us to hear from both parties. Once we agree to examine a particular subject, we have an obligation to hear from different witnesses who can shed light on all aspects of a matter like this.

We cannot limit ourselves to only one witness and subsequently declare that the matter is over and done with. No, we cannot. As a rule, when a witness testifies before the committee in connection with a particular issue, whether it be an urgent matter or a planned study, we take the time to go over things with departmental officials and to decide whether or not a study is warranted, unless we have enough facts to decide that we need to do a study, as was the case with the crab fishery and aquaculture industry and with other issues such as small craft harbours.

Fin and I had agreed that we could hear witnesses. I hadn't necessarily agreed to undertake a study, since I'm already well aware of the work on the committee's planned agenda.

In light of our discussion and the initial agreement that we supposedly had, would Fin agree to amending or deferring the motion in question until later, as was mentioned earlier? That would give us time to hear the witness make his case and to hear the other side of the story from departmental representatives. We could then decide whether or not a study is warranted.

As a rule, when we are not familiar with an issue, it makes sense to take the time to hear from those who believe an issue is important or important to them. Then we listen to what departmental officials have to say on the subject and determine what we do next. We get the opportunity to hear from individuals who have sent a letter to the chair, or from people who have asked us to speak to our colleagues and convince them that a particular issue warrants further consideration.

I certainly think we need to examine this matter and decide subsequently, based on the evidence presented, whether a study is warranted. I don't have enough information on this matter to say whether or not we should do a study. In any case, I had agreed—and I thought we all had agreed—to examine this matter with the help of witnesses and to hold off deciding at this time whether or not to carry out a study.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Monsieur Blais.

Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, being new to this committee, I'm not completely sure of its processes, but I guess the question really is, were the motion to pass, does this necessarily mean that it has to be addressed right away, or is it then for the subcommittee to consider the next time there's a scheduling discussion and to put it into a queue with other motions that may have come forward by then? In that case, the subcommittee would have some ability to address the concerns about completing the things that are already on the docket and considering whether it's more useful, as a public good, to take a look at this issue before cabinet makes its decision, in order to provide more information to cabinet, or whether it is preferable to wait until after cabinet makes its decision and include some commentary.

Would it not be up to the subcommittee, in this committee's process—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

On your first question, Ms. Murray, yes, the subcommittee would come back with a recommendation to this committee as to when, if the motion were adopted, the work would take place and when the committee would actually undertake the study. With regard to before or after the cabinet's decision is taken, I guess that's part of the debate that's taking place right now.

But yes, you're correct in your assumption, or I guess your question, that this committee would make the final decision. The subcommittee would make a recommendation to the whole committee with reference to where on the priority list this would be placed, if the motion were adopted.

I hope that answers your question.

Mr. Allen.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to my colleagues for the comments.

I guess given that the cabinet panel report was a pretty extensive report, it's quite likely that anything we could do would not match thirty days of hearings in ten communities in any short order. I would suggest that until the cabinet is done....

I would prepare to make a motion that we defer this and bring it back for discussion after cabinet has made its decision. I'll give Fin the opportunity maybe to decide whether he wants to do that himself; otherwise, I will move a motion that it be deferred until after a cabinet decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

You're proposing a motion for deferral, but you want to give Mr. Donnelly the opportunity to speak to it first?

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

Well, if he wants to.

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

It's moved.

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

If he wants to...but it's moved, I guess, now.

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

It's on the floor.

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

It's on the floor, so....

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

It's kind of confusing the way you....

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

That's correct: procedurally I just--

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

You've confused me before, so that's all right.

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

I'm just trying to get back at you for all the times you've confused me. But I still think you're Chair of the Year.

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

That's on the public record.