Evidence of meeting #43 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was questions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
It's been moved by Monsieur Godin that the committee stand clause 16, the amendment G-4, until the next committee day, in order to bring forward counsel to provide advice to committee.
Does that make sense?
Conservative
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Well, Mr. Chair, I think I understand the reason for it, but I think the questions have been answered, and I think the clause does what we expect it to do. I think we're inclined not to support this motion.
Conservative
François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
The witnesses who are here today answered the questions with some reservations. They are doing their best, but I think that it is basically part of our work on this committee to check certain things before sending a bill for third reading to the House, if we see that there could be shortcomings.
Mr. Kamp said that some people looked at this and concluded that there were no shortcomings. As Mr. MacAulay said, people find gaps in bills; there are tonnes of them. There is tax evasion on the order of several billion dollars a year. There are gaps in legislation despite the best intentions of the experts who provide their services to departments.
I don't understand why Bill S-3 will be referred back to the House tomorrow morning. Why can we not simply wait until the next meeting of the committee to hear an expert who will tell me that because of jurisprudence and other elements, my concerns are not justified? I will be very happy if an expert comes here to explain that to me. We will thus have worked properly for Canadians, the people of the fishing industry, and the judges.
It would take 48 hours to make sure that there is no problem with the equation in clause 18.04 and the maximum sentence. How would the fact of examining this over the course of the next 48 hours prevent the bill from working? I do not see why the government absolutely wants to do this quickly.
In fact, I know why. Generally, when you propose amendments, you are completely allergic to the very idea that they be questioned. It should be the opposite in the meetings of the committee, which should be a little more collegial.
For once, could you not show some good will and accept that we obtain answers to our questions? I may be proven wrong. You may find it fantastic if an expert tells me that my concerns are not well-founded. That would be good for you. I am offering you this. If that is what I am told, it would be good for you and not for me, but at least, we would have done our work till the end.
Conservative
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Can I propose that that we go to article 18 and say “with outstanding article 16”? Then there's a reference to it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
We have a motion on the floor at this point in time. You put it on the floor.
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
I know, and I appreciate that.
Is there anything further on the motion put forward by Monsieur Godin?
Mr. Kamp.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
I just have one final comment, I think. I'm not a lawyer, but I've dealt with enough lawyers to know that you're probably not going to get a lawyer in this room to say that this may or may not be challenged at some point. That's just what lawyers do.
What we can be assured of is that this has been carefully scrutinized by both the legal counsel at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Justice, so I think we can have some confidence that we can go ahead and pass this clause. I think we're going to vote against this motion.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
On that motion, though, I have to agree with Mr. Kamp. That's why we have to be careful, and put it in black and white, because he agrees with us that it could be challenged, that it's what we'll do.... That's why I always say there's nothing better than putting it in black and white, and by going to article 18, which is another thing we do.... But there's a way to fix it. I think you related it, and if we're all a bunch of non-lawyers, it's about time, maybe, that we bring a lawyer into—
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
I'm trying to be under the radar.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Weston, you know we're right.
But anyway, I think we've said enough on it. Our concerns have been noted, and I think they're good concerns.
Conservative
NDP
François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I would simply like to underscore the absurdity of the situation. Five of the people here, including the department's representative, have said that they were not lawyers.
And I am in fact asking for a legal opinion. This room is filled with people who cannot quite frame the issue, because they are not lawyers. That is why we are asking for a legal expert. It is totally ironic to see the government refuse to let us take the time we need to do that, unless Mr. Weston agrees to draft a small addendum that would say that indeed, in concrete terms, clause 18.04 makes it possible to go beyond the $500,000 ceiling that is proposed. There might be an easy way for a lawyer to word that in a simple sentence. I don't know if Mr. Weston would be willing to look at a way of allowing the judges to work with maximum leeway in this case.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
The problem is that if I start, I will not be able to finish. So I do not have a specific answer.