Evidence of meeting #6 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was comox.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
I think we have to do that. We've had some time. We've done half-meetings. If the committee can take that—
Liberal
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
I'm not proposing that. I don't know if they're available or not.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
If we have perhaps an hour on the 24th, it would be nice if there were witnesses who could appear on this topic, even by teleconference, that day.
Again, this was done in camera, so I'll try to be careful. At the time when we discussed this previously, there was a work plan that was set up to get a report to the House by a certain date. Now, if we're no longer concerned about an end date, perhaps we have that opportunity, but that would be my concern. There was some urgency, which is why this was done in the first place and why we had consolidated or abbreviated the number of days that we would consider it.
The only thing I would say to Mr. Donnelly or to anyone else is that by adding dates, we push out the date for the analyst to have a report. If I recall the calendar, I think it pushes it out into May. We heard that date mentioned today. I think we would do better to try to use that meeting on the 24th for this and try to get a report back to the House prior to May.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
That would be 3:30 to 4:30 on March 24. Okay.
Before I proceed any further, do I have unanimous consent to stretch this meeting to 5:45?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I understand, Bev, and you're doing it well.
The proposal is out there to have a one-hour meeting on the 24th from 3:30 to 4:30. Do I see consensus for that?
Go ahead, Mr. Donnelly.
Liberal
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
If the Comox witnesses are not available, I would suggest we cancel the meeting. If we can get a Comox panel together for an hour, I would suggest we do that. If not, I would suggest we cancel.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
How do we feel on Comox for one hour, if we have time for committee business?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
If we can't get any witnesses, we won't have a meeting. All right, that's agreed to.
Now, the minister is coming in on the main estimates on the 19th of April. On April 19 the main estimates are being discussed here with the minister. Where we left it last time was that we're going to have another day for the mandate letter sometime in May or June, depending on his availability. That was talked about because April is obviously taken up with other stuff.
Is there any discussion on that? Go ahead, Ms. Jordan.
Liberal
Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I'd like to make a motion, please, that, we bring in the minister on April 19 for the full meeting to discuss the mandate letters, as the previous motion had suggested, as well as the main estimates on that day.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
That's a motion on the floor. While we're scribbling down that motion and getting it straight, is there any quick discussion on this motion?
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
It's unfortunate that we're coming to that. Obviously there's going to be an attempt here to have a vote on it. It was fairly clear what we had asked for. It was what the committee had voted in favour of on the first day. People on both sides of the table wanted the minister for a separate meeting to talk about his mandate letter. Now we have the minister coming for just one meeting instead of two.
Certainly that is not the spirit in which the invitation was extended, and it's regrettable that this is what is being proposed by the government side. I would have thought the minister would be eager to appear more than once to talk to this committee about his estimates and about his mandate letter. We talked in the last meeting about having the minister for an hour and officials for an hour on the estimates, and now that's being abbreviated to one hour. We talked about having the minister on his mandate letter in a separate meeting, and it is now being proposed to take that away.
I can count and I can understand what the government side is trying to do here, but it certainly violates the spirit of the original motion and the intent to have the minister here to deal with both of those issues in separate meetings, so obviously I will be opposing that motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Mr. Hardie is next, and Mr. Donnelly will follow.
Mr. Hardie, go ahead quickly please.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
The minister's schedule being what it is, I understand that a second meeting might take a while to organize, but we've got him for two hours, apparently, which is unusual, as I understand it, from past meetings, where ministers would ordinarily show up for an hour.
The other thing is that in the other committee that I'm on, the discussion itself led to a blending of both the estimates and the mandate letter. We transitioned back and forth between the two matters. With two hours to cover, you might even run out of questions.
