Fisheries Committee on March 8th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I just wanted clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Strahl.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

That would be our request. The minister would exclusively answer questions for the first hour, and then we'd reset and have officials continue on with the main estimates, so the full two-hour meeting would be on the main estimates.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We're still proposing that be on April 19.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We'll leave that there. We're solid on April 19. I have good consensus on that.

On April 21, we're going to analyze the Comox report prepared by our trusty analyst here. We'll discuss the report as presented to us, make any changes, look at any suggestions you have, and possibly finalize it at that time.

If there are changes to be made to that report when our analyst presents it on the 21st, we'll have to have a subsequent meeting to deal with those changes, pass the report, and bring it back. That being said, we're okay with April 21 for the Comox report. Done.

Let's all turn to May. It's an open sheet here. What was one priority is now two and possibly three.

Number one, we had the cod study as proposed by Mr. McDonald. I think there was some interest in travelling with this particular study. There's also now the mandate letter to be discussed at one of the meetings. Again, I can't set a date for that, because we don't know what date the minister is available.

Can we have some discussion about May and June? I would like to have a discussion, if it's okay with everyone, about the cod study and what we would like to do with this. Do we want to travel to areas affected by the northern cod? Do we want to stay here and do it, and have witnesses here? I'm open to discussion on that one.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

I would like to experience and hear from those on the front line who have been affected. That would be, primarily, within the province of Newfoundland. I would be interested in travelling and hearing from them. There are plants there that we could visit or see that have been impacted but that may still be running.

I'd rather do that than just hear witnesses. If the process is the same as what I've seen to date, and I'm new to the committee, I think I'll learn a lot more outside of Ottawa.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Is there anybody else on this issue? I hate to implore people to talk, because it's up to you folks.

Mr. McDonald, it's your motion. Do you have any thoughts on what you'd like to see?

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I'd like to see us travel, as Mr. Morrissey just said, to experience it first-hand, and to talk to the people who have been affected by what's happened to the cod fishery and hear about where they see it going in the future. We have a lot of resources in Newfoundland that we can talk to. It may be easier to talk to people there versus getting them to come here.

The marine institute would be a great facility to visit in order to see the new technology they're looking at, and so on. You have fish plants in the area. You have fishermen who are certainly not far away from St. John's, if that's going to be the point of entry, I guess, if the trip to the province is done.

I think we could make it a worthwhile venture and an informative one as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Folks, we have about six minutes left in this meeting. Before I go to Mr. Strahl, let me say that in the next meeting we have our Comox study, with four to eight witnesses coming in, but can I propose that we use another 15 minutes at the end of it to discuss committee business once more? It looks like this cod study discussion could open up. Is that okay?

Okay. We'll do that. I don't want to impinge upon the time of the witnesses with that, but we will talk committee business.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

I guess there's another item that needs to be considered: would this be the full group? I know that in the past some committees I've been on have travelled with a reduced quorum, which generally makes the chief government whip a little happier. We would be open to that as well and to have a representative group. Mr. Donnelly would be a part of that, I assume, either way.

It also helps to keep the costs more reasonable. I would throw that out there as an option. It's something that we on this side would be open to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

How about we do as was just suggested? We first have to come up with a place. Once we decide upon where we're going, we can ask the logistics officer to propose two options: one with a full committee and another one with a reduced committee, and you can see the costs. But before that, I think we have to decide how many meetings and where we go.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

On that, Mr. Chair, I would assume that it's going to be a week or so of travel, so that's probably a couple of committee meetings. I don't know if it's going to go longer than that. As well, we could hear from witnesses who we couldn't see; there could be a meeting or two to hear from witnesses. Certainly, we had a great presentation this morning. I think it could be either. It could be a place to visit or we could hear them presenting their vision of cod and cod fishing. Also, there's the shrimp issue that we talked about.

If we could give our analysts and our clerk direction on what the study could look like, they could come back with a recommendation for what travel might look like and for hearing a few witnesses. It's going to take a number of committee meetings to put the report together and then to review the report and the recommendations. When you say six, that will get eaten up pretty quickly with just this study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Six meetings, yes.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

With six committee meetings, if two are for travel and if even one is just for witnesses, then you have three to finish the report. That is incredibly ambitious.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

I hate to be a wet blanket, but logistically the travel is a nightmare, and it will take a lot of time. I think it's mandatory that only part of the committee go. That's the way it was normally done in the fisheries committee.

The other thing is that any travel has to be done during a parliamentary week, not a constituency week. I assume that's understood.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

That's a good point.

We're running short of time, but we have Ms. Jordan.

Please, let's be careful of our time here.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

You said six meetings. Were you just taking May into account here?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I didn't mention six meetings.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I heard someone say six meetings, and that you only had six meetings to deal with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

That was suggested.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Okay, because we have June as well, correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

That was just for clarification. Thank you.