Fisheries Committee on Feb. 1st, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you.

Mr. Kelloway, you have your hand up.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

There are just a couple things.

When I look at the format that we had proposed, it was one for one: one Liberal study, one Bloc study, one NDP study, the Conservatives. Then, in the intermediate or near term, we would have our study done.

There's a song by Queen that says “I want it all, and I want it now.” That's what this motion seems to be. It seems like we're flooding this all with a lot of Conservative studies. I think it impedes us from being able to be flexible, nimble, adaptable and responsive to other things that might come up.

I don't get the sense of collegiality here in terms of working with each other to get studies from each of the parties out. When I look at what was originally proposed—the one study, the second study, the third study, the fourth study, and then we would certainly have enough there for a calendar to be put out, and then to work collectively to repeat that cycle—that seems to be collegial. It seems to be fair; it seems to enable us to not be chained by things that might come up that we might not be able to address.

That's not to say these studies are not important. Of course, they're important. Every one of them is important. However, I think it impedes our ability to be flexible should something, God forbid, happen on the west coast and we want to be able to double and triple down our efforts in terms of doing a study.

This particular motion really handcuffs us in a lot of ways. If we go the original route, it provides greater flexibility and adaptability and it's also fair. I think that's what Canadians are looking for us to do in this Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Kelloway.

All I will say is that, during committee business, motions can come forward to set the schedule as we intended to do today. Yes, it might seem heavy-handed from one side to the other, depending on where you sit, but I can't influence committee members to put forward studies just to get them in as one, one, one. Everybody had an equal opportunity to some degree to present motions of study, to give notice of motions of study. If there are more one-sided studies, then it suits somebody else. We can't control that.

If these are the ones we're looking at doing, they're the ones we're looking at doing. If there's nothing else in the docket to add for another party, regardless of who it might be, I don't control that.

One thing we do is control our schedule as we go. As we know, there are no dates assigned to these during order of preference to be done. Other than that, it's the will of the committee, unless there's something else somebody wants to present to fit in somewhere.

On that, I'll go to people who had their hands raised. First I'll go to Ms. Barron, who has been waiting.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Chair. That's helpful clarification around the process undertaken around this.

I'm just trying to wrap all these details around in my brain. First and foremost, the motions were passed so that these studies are now in the queue per se to be looked at. I have some apprehensions of us setting a clear schedule of priorities from now up until 2023 and beyond, because I do think it will bind us and prevent us from being able to respond to issues as they are occurring. I think of the spot prawn issue, which was very timely and pertinent; we would have had the opportunity to talk about that.

I agree with us setting priorities as we've done with the motions currently. I don't agree with us setting priorities for all the motions that have been brought forward. I realize it's not realistic to go one to one, because it does depend on what has been brought forward, but I also think it's not realistic for us to set those priorities so far in advance and therefore take away the flexibility for us to respond to issues as required and be able to add studies that are perhaps more timely than others.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Just to respond to that, Ms. Barron, I think you'll find things change here on the fly. We can all set whatever schedule we like and it is going to change as we go forward. There is nothing etched in stone in anything we are doing as a committee because it can be thrown off the rails and turned upside-down and inside-out in five minutes.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Could I ask a question around that then? What would be the intention of this motion if, in fact, we can change everything on a moment's notice? Could I understand a little bit more around the intention of having these motions set?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

They can change. For example, if there was some piece of legislation done through the Minister of Fisheries, that takes precedence over everything this committee is doing. An emergency might come up on the west or east coast or somewhere else that requires the committee to look at something immediately. Some member may bring it forward and ask for unanimous consent or a majority of consent to do something different at some given time. If it's voted to do that, the schedule changes.

Like I said, it's not etched in stone. This is a guide that we'll try to follow as best we can, but I learned quickly that it doesn't stay as it was intended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

While I'm new to the committee and there are more experienced committee members here, I'd like to start by saying to Mr. Kelloway that, of course, we are collegial. That's why we adopted your motion with the order in which you proposed it. To make a statement that we're not being collegial is unfair.

Second, in terms of the questions about flexibility, we know, for example, that in the minister's mandate letter she's been asked to table a bill and legislation on amendments to the Oceans Act. We expect legislation, Mr. Chair, as you have said, and that takes precedence over anything—even the first motion.

In the order of collegiality we are always open to amending the committee's order of study because of legislation, other urgent things, or as the ground shifts over time and something comes up. Obviously we can't predict even past June what we all will be facing, so that flexibility is always there, as Mr. Kelloway says.

In the interests of collegiality, as I understand, that's the way the committee has operated in the past and this motion does not change that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Zimmer.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

I just want to respond to Ms. Barron.

My colleagues are tired of me saying this, but I'm a former chair of a committee as well.

This doesn't in any way impede a committee from deciding what its future holds.

The reason we are wanting to make sure that what we had already passed is recognized and respected as such is that we all supported the motions that Mr. Perkins referred to in the schedule. Again, as the chair so eloquently said—I couldn't say it any better—the committee can decide to do whatever it wants in the future. This doesn't impede the committee from making changes if necessary.

It is just kind of a signal that your studies have been heard and they are on the schedule, but again it's always up to the committee to decide what changes it would propose. It doesn't really hamstring us in any way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I'll now go Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In response to Mr. Perkins and Mr. Zimmer, this motion then is really not necessary. What they are doing, of course, is signalling to us the priorities that they put on the number of motions that they put forward.

I don't think committing to a schedule—even though it could be changed—is necessary at this point. After we conclude Ms. Barron's study that's already on the schedule we've agreed to and before we launch into Mr. Arnold's, we could certainly sit down then and look at the rest of the calendar for the spring session and decide what comes next. We need to have that discussion not just based on emergent things that come up, but to ensure that the voices of all of the participants in this committee are heard in a reasonable balance and fair order.

I don't really see the value of Mr. Perkins' motion except to signal to us what's important to the Conservative Party. Those are good studies and we can get to them in turn, but they shouldn't necessarily stack up and dominate our schedule going forward for the remainder of this year.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hardie.

Go ahead, Mr. Hanley.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

I want to add to Mr. Kelloway's and Mr. Hardie's comments, which I heartily agree with. I just want to say that if there was an intention at the beginning to set the calendar for the next two or three years, then I think there would have been a different approach to putting all motions on the table at the time, to be sorted appropriately. I do think committing to a schedule means that in order to have another motion in place that may not be an emergency motion but that may be an important motion, one would then have to change or undo a process.

Respectfully, I think there are other motions being conceived at this time. One motion is very dear to me and to my constituency. I think Canadians expect a collaborative approach. Following what we have set for the next four studies, I believe...and it's great to know these fine studies, and the priority the Conservative Party puts to them, but there are other studies as well to consider in the near future.

So I certainly would not support either the text or the intent of this motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Go ahead, Mr. Small.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I'd like to speak in support of MP Perkins' motion. I'm sure the way he has that schedule laid out there reflects consultations with industry stakeholders.

I think we should soon have a vote. We can just imagine, if we're paying the salaries here today....

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Go ahead, Mr. Zimmer.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

I want to speak to some of the comments made by our Liberal colleagues. Quoting “two or three years” in advance—that's hardly the case. This is just putting the committee's studies in the fall. There will be lots of room in the future. Saying that is just inaccurate. We're talking about setting up the schedule so that we have a good picture of what this year is going to bring.

I think we've been working collegially with all our colleagues and have shown support and goodwill toward all members of the committee. I would just put that on the record.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Go ahead, Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is just a clarification on one of the comments earlier. There are five studies, I believe, in the first motion that we passed, and that's the order in which the committee is going to study them.

I'd like to raise a point of order, Mr. Chair. I'd like to notify you that we don't have unanimous consent to end the meeting at 1 p.m., since we started at least 15 minutes late today. I propose that the committee extend its sitting time to finish our business to 1:30 p.m.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

You're asking for an extension of 30 minutes?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

That's because of the delay today, at the beginning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Because of the 15-minute delay—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Yes—and where's we're going here.