Fisheries Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2020

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to ask you a procedural question. I would like to know if it is possible to propose certain types of amendments to Mr. Williamson's motion. First, we should indicate a date for the Minister's appearance at one of our regular meetings. As Mr. Battiste said, we want to hear from several witnesses, but we also want to hear from the Minister. I completely agree with Mr. Williamson on that. That said, would it be possible to create a subcommittee that would hear from witnesses on a more regular basis and the committee could welcome Minister Jordan as the next witness? We could work at the same time and thus speed up the work given that it is urgent.

I defer to you, Mr. Chair and Madam Clerk, on whether it is possible to propose such an amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

As far as I know, Madame Gill, you can amend any motion once it is presented to the committee. That's happened many, many times.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Very good. I have not yet written my amendment. I do not have the printed document. I will state my amendment in French and it will be interpreted into English. I have the text of the motion here and I will do the best I can.

I would like the Minister to come to the committee before November 13, 2020, and, in the meantime, that a sub-committee be established with five members, including the Chair and one member for each party, and that this committee have the sole task of completing the current study.

I'm sorry, I made my amendment orally.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Madame Gill.

I will go to the clerk for clarification regarding whether we as a subcommittee can order witnesses or have witnesses appear. I thought all of that, with regard to witnesses, had to take place in actual committee.

Nancy, I ask for your guidance, please.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Nancy Vohl]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First, we must determine whether it is an amendment. It is my understanding that Mrs. Gill is proposing an amendment. By definition, an amendment is a change that improves or changes the principal motion. What Mrs. Gill just suggested seems to be an entirely different motion. The proposal should be rephrased so that I can understand that it is an amendment and not another motion.

Can you please read it again, Mrs. Gill?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

It would be easier for me to quickly write it out. Is it possible to suspend the meeting for two minutes so I can do so?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I'll suspend for two minutes, but I will remind everyone on the committee that we are running out of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I'll call us back to order.

Madame Gill, I think everybody should now have received this from the clerk.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, could you just quickly clarify what we have left here for time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

The remaining time in the scheduled committee meeting is 10 minutes.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

You're welcome.

Now, has everybody received a copy of the amendment by Madame Gill?

Okay, I see some people shaking their heads. Perhaps I can read it out.

The amendment from Madame Gill now reads, “that the minister appear before committee before November 13, 2020”.

That has been moved by Madame Gill. Do we have any discussion on the amendment?

Go ahead, Mr. Morrissey.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

As a committee member, I'm a bit frustrated. We've had expert witnesses ready to appear before the committee, and for once this committee has put the people impacted, the first nations community and commercial fishers, first. We've been hearing from them because they're impacted.

Quite frankly, we can have officials from the department, including the minister, before this committee anytime this committee chooses. To have the Conservative opposition spending all this time on when we're going to bring officials from the department or the minister in is, excuse the pun, a bit of a red herring. The testimony we've been getting will allow me as a committee member to be better informed when the officials from that department appear before this committee.

This issue has gone on for 20 years. As for this jostling back and forth and this “let's pretend” with the officials, the committee will have the officials when it chooses to, by majority. To be spending this time when we could have been....

We've had expert witnesses in here before us. This has been a bit of a filibuster from the Conservatives, when we could have been hearing from these witnesses, and a bit of pretending. Yes, we've started different studies by hearing from ministers and officials, but not all of them. There's no precedent in it, quite frankly. We made the right decision by bringing in the people who were impacted, the most important people, who had not been heard from—the first nations community and commercial fishers—to present to this committee. Then we could hear from the officials and the minister.

This is like a filibuster. We're wasting our time here when we have expert witnesses ready to put on the record compelling evidence that would allow me as a committee member to be better informed when we finally have these officials.

I'm really disappointed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Okay.

I'll remind members that we're still speaking to the amendment by Madame Gill.

Mr. Beech, did you wave?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Chair, I just want to say that the minister is always happy to come to the fisheries and oceans committee and that everyone had a wonderful opportunity to submit their witness list in due course, which could include the department and include the minister.

The minister also has an outstanding request to visit this committee prior to the end of the month. If the committee sees fit to move that request up, I'm sure the minister would be more than happy to attend. However, I have to imagine that the motion put forward by the Conservatives to suspend this very important study is going to be incredibly disappointing to everyone in eastern Canada who was hoping that this good work would go forward. I just can't comprehend where the Conservative Party is coming from with wanting to suspend.

That said, I want to be clear that the minister will be happy to come to the fisheries and oceans committee to give testimony.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Beech.

Madame Gill, do you want to speak to that? You've put up your hand.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I would like to jokingly say that, in politics, we must manage our frustration even if it is difficult to do so. There is a lot of frustration, but let us put it aside.

For the past few weeks, and right from the beginning, we have said that this is urgent. The purpose of the motion is to determine what has been done by the government over the past five years. This does not prevent us from continuing our work and hearing from witnesses. One does not preclude the other. I believe that it is a false dilemma.

We could move another motion asking the committee to hold two meetings next week, for example. We could also fit in a meeting with the Minister. As Mr. Beech said, the Minister is happy to appear before us. There is a meeting slated for Thursday of this week. We could meet her then. We would not even have to wait until November 13; it could happen right away. We would not have to suspend our work, and we could continue to hear from those witnesses we really need to hear from.

We actually want to do more than what Mr. Morrissey is suggesting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Madame Gill.

Mr. Bragdon, you had your hand up. I don't know if that was to speak to the amendment or to the original motion.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

As a matter of fact, I can speak to both.

In regard to the amendment—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

You can only speak to the amendment right now.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Okay.

In regard to the amendment, I think that having a timeline set to have the minister appear as quickly as possible—and it being firm—is very relevant to the work of this committee. In fact, we've heard from numerous witnesses so far. They have confirmed directly that the minister's absence on this has been a significant factor as to the reason why we're in the situation that we're in right now, along with several others, but that does not mitigate the fact that we need to hear from the minister right away.

This is an emergency. We've had an emergency debate in Parliament. This committee needs to hear from the minister sooner rather than later. Very much, I think, the quicker we can have the minister appear before this committee, the better.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Bragdon.

Mr. Calkins, you had your hand up. I don't know if that was to speak to the amendment.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

It's to speak to the amendment, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Go ahead.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you so much.

In an effort to be efficient, if I may, I'll just ask our colleague Madame Gill where in the original motion she is placing the wording of her amendment, so that I can have a clear picture of it. I know what the words are that she wants to add to the motion. I just don't know where in the motion she wants to add them. Or is it just an independent sentence that is part of the motion?

If it is just an independent sentence that's part of the motion, then I just want some clarification from her that if the minister is unable to come by that date, she would agree that the motion's interpretation would be that this committee suspend this study until the minister actually does come.