FOPO Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
[English]
Honourable members of the committee, I see a quorum.
I must inform members that the clerk of the committee can receive motions only for the election of the chair. The clerk cannot receive other types of motions, cannot entertain points of order, and cannot participate in debate.
We can now proceed to the election of the chair.
I have a point of order. Oh no, you said you can't entertain a point of order. Sorry, I didn't quite catch that.
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the chair must be a member of the government party.
I am ready to receive motions for the election of the chair.
I nominate Rodney Weston for chair of the committee.
I worked as hard as I could, but I couldn't muster up enough....
Are there any other further motions?
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
The Clerk: I declare Mr. Rodney Weston elected chair of the committee.
Before inviting Mr. Weston to take the chair, if the committee wishes we will now proceed to the election of the vice-chairs.
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the first vice-chair must be a member of the official opposition.
I am now prepared to receive motions for the election of the first vice-chair.
It has been moved by Mr. Kamp that Mr. Chisholm be elected first vice-chair of the committee. Are there any further motions?
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
The Clerk: I declare Mr. Chisholm elected first vice-chair of the committee.
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the second vice-chair must be a member of an opposition party other than the official opposition party.
I am now prepared to receive motions for the second vice-chair.
Mr. Chisholm.
I'll nominate Mr. MacAulay.
I was going to let him sweat a little bit. He was looking around for somebody to nominate him.
I just think it should be said, for his kids, grandchildren, and others, that even if there were hundreds of others, we'd still be nominating Lawrence MacAulay.
It has been moved by Mr. Chisholm that Mr. MacAulay be elected second vice-chair of the committee.
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
The Clerk: I declare Mr. MacAulay duly elected second vice-chair of the committee.
I now invite Mr. Weston to take the chair.
Thank you very much.
It's nice to be back. I trust everyone had a good holiday and a productive beginning to the new year.
I want to take a moment to welcome a new member to our committee. Mr. Stewart, it's nice to have you here. I certainly look forward to your involvement and input in this committee.
I want to pass along thanks through the official opposition to the two members who have left the committee, Mr. Toone and Mr. Donnelly. We certainly valued their input over the last while. Thanks also to Mr. Kerr. He was only with us for a short time, but we certainly did appreciate his input as well.
Yes, please.
I've already told Mr. Kerr, but I do appreciate the input from all committee members, and I look forward to continuing the same very collegial type of attitude we've had on this committee. I certainly look forward to continuing to move forward on the issues that we take on as a committee.
Today, as you probably saw, there's only one item on the agenda, the election of the chair and the vice-chairs. I do look for consent to move to routine motions at this point in time. We'll do committee business at this point in time to deal with routine motions.
Mr. Chisholm, you mentioned before the meeting that there has been some discussion in other committees around the routine motions and the order.
Before I go there, I thought it would be a good opportunity to do that today rather than putting it off until the first of the week. That will be the only other item of business that we'll do today, the routine motions.
I'm going to start it off and circulate copies of the routine motions that outline the speaking order and the designation of speakers.
In the text it's “Allocation of Time for Questioning”. I'm not sure who wants to start off the discussion around this today. I'll wait until we get the routine motions distributed.
Mr. Chisholm.
Mr. Chairman, I see that the order we're going to be doing is 10 minutes, seven minutes, and then five minutes, which I think is a good idea. I've been consulting with some of my colleagues. I see that we give Mr. MacAulay 10 minutes in the first round and then seven minutes in the second round.
When you read the routine motions, the 10 minutes that are referred to are for the opening statement.
Let me start again, because I was wondering whether we wanted to start with a 10-minute round as our first round, and then maybe go to five-minute rounds. I also wondered, given that we seem to have had of late a number of witnesses in for only an hour, whether we want to continue with this order, or whether we want to push the Liberals back to the third round. What happens, of course, is if we do the one hour, then it's kind of out of proportion in terms of the participation.
Those are two things. One is the question of 10 minutes and then five minutes, and then the question of party order.
Just to be clear, what you're suggesting, Mr. Chisholm, is that the first round would last 10 minutes, and it would remain the same for speakers: Conservative, NDP, Conservative, and Liberal. They would have 10 minutes each. In the second round, it would be NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, and Conservative, for five minutes each.
For all of us again. Okay. It would be Conservative, NDP, Conservative, and Liberal. Is that what you're suggesting?
The order is the same. What he's suggesting is changing the first round. Rather than it being a seven-minute round, it will be 10 minutes. In the second round, it would be removing you, quite frankly, from the second round and moving you to the third round, and it would be a five-minute allotment as well.
I'm not sure that I have an opinion yet on the second half.
This committee for many years has had 10-minute opening rounds. One advantage of it was that you could split that effectively with two members if you didn't want to do 10 minutes with one speaker. A seven-minute round is hard to split, because you think you're going to split, but you get four and a half minutes into it and you don't leave very much time, depending on what kinds of answers are coming back from the witness.
I think we would be okay with that.
Also, with respect to the first round, if we're going to change that, we might be interested as well in having the Conservatives go last in that round and moving the Liberal up into the third spot. That's just our preference, I think.
You're suggesting to just change the bottom two. Are you suggesting changing the whole order so that the NDP would lead off, or would you still lead off with Conservative, and then have NDP, Liberal, and Conservative? Is that what you're suggesting?
I'm just talking about the first round, which would be Conservative, NDP, Liberal, and Conservative.
So the Conservatives would be first and last, and the NDP and Liberal would be in the middle. All right.
Are you okay with the 10 minutes?
Okay. Let's focus our discussion at this point on the first round. At this point it's a combined proposal from Mr. Chisholm and Mr. Kamp for 10 minutes. When I say combined, I mean that Mr. Chisholm is suggesting 10 minutes for each questioner, and Mr. Kamp is just suggesting a change in the order of speakers. He's suggesting going Conservative, NDP, Liberal, and Conservative for that first round.
Are there any questions on that?
Mr. MacAulay.
I would support what Mr. Kamp is proposing.
Can I ask a question? Would the first round be Conservative, NDP, Liberal, and Conservative?
I understand.
The proposal for the first round is to move from seven minutes to 10 minutes for time limits, the time allocation for each party. As Mr. Kamp said, it does make it easier to split the time if you want to split with another member as well. The only change would be moving from seven minutes to 10 minutes, and then the order would be Conservative, NDP, Liberal, and Conservative, as opposed to the present order.
Mr. Chisholm.
I'm sorry. I just wanted to say that it is the case in some committees that the NDP starts off, but I'm neither here nor there on it. I'm quite happy with the way it's been going here and the way we seem to usually.... I mean, Sopuck gets out of hand from time to time, but that's usually after I speak, not before.
Yes, I'm happy with the idea. If the Conservatives want to start and finish the first round, that's fine.
I think Mr. Chisholm raises a good point. In fact, it used to be that way here for most of my career on this committee. The opposition would begin the questioning round.
I don't think we would be opposed to the Conservatives going second and fourth, instead of first and fourth.
The other thing I was going to say, because Robert is right in that we seem to have a lot of one-hour witness panels, and when you go to this 10 minutes and it's a 10-minute presentation, and it's starting a little bit late, this fits in a little better, I think, with that one hour. Then it's up to us, as the parties, to figure out how we're going to split up that 10 minutes.
I think I'm hearing consensus here on the first round, that we move to 10 minutes for each time slot, and the order would be NDP, Conservative, Liberal, and Conservative. Okay? Good.
The second question is on the second round. At this time, the order is NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Conservative, and Conservative. Now we're losing two members from the committee, so the suggestion at most committees has been that we drop one NDP and one Conservative from the time slots. That would leave it as NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, Liberal, and Conservative.
Mr. Chisholm's suggestion was that we go with NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, and Conservative in the second round.
The third round, if there is a third round, would be a five-minute round as well. It would move through the same order, beginning again as we did with the 10-minute round. It's probably getting confusing, but it would be Conservative, NDP, Conservative, Liberal.... I'm sorry. It would be NDP, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, and Conservative. That would be the third round.
Mr. MacAulay.
Basically the third round makes very little difference. If you have to dump me, why don't you dump me on the third one, because basically I'm out of play after the first round if you do that.
I just ask for the—
I love to sit here and listen to Mr. MacAulay, with his vast experience and so on, but the only point I'm raising here is that in terms of the amount of time, it's way out of proportion, that's all, if we have a short period of time. That gives Mr. MacAulay 15 minutes in those two rounds and gives us 20 minutes.
It would balance out over a two-hour stretch. That's certainly what I've seen in other committees. I've just noticed it over the last few hearings. I think we need to get a little more of a whack at things and then bring him in on the third round. Then he's good to go.
Basically, when you look at total time, what Mr. Chisholm is suggesting is that in the first two rounds you would be reduced from 12 minutes to 10.
That's what you're suggesting.
Mr. MacAulay.
Basically, that would be my input. All I can do is beg for the committee's indulgence to leave it as it is.
Could I just ask for clarification on the second round being proposed? Were we shortening the second round or having this long list as per the clerk's sheet here?
We're shortening the second round. The timeframe will remain the same at five minutes per questioner, but now the second round would consist of NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, and Conservative, as per Mr. Chisholm's suggestion, rather than what we've had in the past, which was NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Conservative, and Conservative.
We're losing two members, so we're taking out one NDP and one Conservative from the second round. Mr. Chisholm's suggestion was to remove the Liberal as well from the second round.
Mr. Chisholm.
Then we'll have 15 minutes, and he'll have 12 minutes.
The Chair: No.
Mr. Robert Chisholm: No, we'll have 20 minutes, and he'll have 15.
That's just a suggestion.
As I said, this is what I've seen in other committees. I think it works a little better and it's fairer in terms of the proportion of members on the committee.
It would mean the Conservatives would have 25 minutes in the first two rounds; the NDP would have 20 minutes; and the Liberal would have 10 minutes. Is that correct?
I think we would have 30 if it's NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, in the second round. Is that what you said?
A voice: No, there are two Conservatives.
Would it help to make the second round quite abbreviated—just four slots again: NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative—and then start a third round, perhaps with a Liberal leading that round, or one of us? I'm not sure. There is no Liberal in the second round, but it's a shorter second round.
You're suggesting the Conservatives would drop one, so the second round would consist of only five minutes, NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, and then the third round would be—
This is just a suggestion, but what if I had five minutes in the second round at the end instead of the seven? Then it would be fair.
Mr. Randy Kamp: Well, that's what you have.
The Chair: That's right.
An hon. member: Nice try, Lawrence.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay: I'm sharper than I thought.
The only thing is that if I am removed from the second round, then basically I have one turn. That's mostly what will happen. There could be an odd time, if I lead on the third round, that the chair might...or if I end the second round. It could happen. But if not, then basically it's one round for the Liberals and that's it. It would be a bit unfair.
But we gave you an extra three minutes—
The Chair: That's on the first round.
Mr. Randy Kamp: It went from seven to ten, and there's nobody for you to split that with.
We've not only given you three more minutes, Lawrence, but it's common among the other committees for the Liberals not to be in the second round. That's the practice. We're not cutting the Liberals off; we're giving them a little more and moving them to the next round.
The proposal that Randy raised about shortening the second round is an interesting one. I mean you're giving up 10 minutes.
It's all right to talk about the other committees, but this fisheries committee has been more than cordial, more than accommodating over the years. All of us had a spurt, even the governing party, where I.... I would ask you to be a little considerate before you make your final decision. You need to leave me in the second round. I think it's fair. I've been on fisheries, when I haven't been in the ministry, from the time I came here, and this is the first time the likes of this has happened. Just consider fairness, please.
If you end the third round with me on it, that's fair, but I think you have to give me the second round. If not, I'm not in it. You can say the third round, but 90% of the time we'll have no third round.
Sure we've had differences around here the odd time, but really not. This has been a very cordial affair.
And I hate getting the shaft.
I would just add that comment, that I don't remember us having a third round. I'll just throw that out.
Is there anything further on that?
Yes, Mr. MacAulay.
All I'll say is that if you leave me on the second round, on the end, with five minutes, then I do have more than one turn. If you go to the third round, I'm out.
That's the decision. I'm sitting here, myself...but it's a decision the committee has to make.
Just a second, I have to wipe away some tears here.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay: No, I'm doing no—
Mr. Robert Chisholm: Lawrence, listen. I haven't been around as long as you have, but I've been at this game a little while. My understanding is that when the NDP was the third party, regardless of who was in government, there wasn't necessarily a tendency to be so fair.
All I'm trying to do is to balance things out a little bit better than I think they have been. I think we're talking a matter of a couple of minutes. I don't think we're generating much of a hardship. The big round is the first round of 10 minutes, and I think that makes a big difference.
Before it would have been 12 minutes out of two rounds, right? Instead, the Liberals are getting 10 minutes, which is two minutes less. I don't call that a hardship.
Maybe Mr. Chisholm can answer this question, or maybe Georges can.
Several times there's been a reference to other committees that have done this. What other committees have done it, and how did they do it?
Sure.
I don't have the specifics, but most of my colleagues have reported back in our meetings that most committees have dropped one NDP member and one Conservative member in the second round. Most of the time the Liberals don't have a second round; they are not into the second round.
What is the decision? Is there going to be a vote, or how are they going to decide?
I mean, quite simply, if I'm removed from the second round, I have one round and then I'm done. That is not fair.
I don't want to get into addressing what happened previously. I've seen a lot of changes around here, but I can tell you one thing. Being fair didn't hurt me any, and I've always been fair, to the best of my ability.
I'm not sucking around, or crying. All I'm telling you is that I want it to be fair. There are times when....
Now we have to decide. I think if you take me out of the second round, then I come for the first 10 minutes and that's it.
Mr. Chair, you've chaired most of the committees since you've come here, and there are not many times we've gone to the third round. The odd time you might have two minutes for each or something, but as you just said.... So it would look bad.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. MacAulay.
Is there anything further on this?
You asked what the decision was, but there has been no decision at this point in time. Sorry, I meant to say that. There has been no decision. It's still in the discussion stage here. That's where we are.
The only thing there has been agreement on so far has been the first round moving to 10 minutes per, and the changes in the speaking order. That's the only thing that's been agreed to so far.
Is there anything further?
Mr. Kamp.
One other thing we could consider if Mr. MacAulay successfully pleads his case, and I use the word “plead” advisedly, is that perhaps we could change the order of the second round so the Liberal comes last in the round. If we run out of time, Mr. MacAulay doesn't get his final five minutes and if we have the time, he gets it.
I'm not in favour of keeping the second round the way it is, because I think Mr. Chisholm is right. We scramble around on this side—we have five questioners—so everyone will have five minutes. Mr. MacAulay will get at least 10. He's asking for a guaranteed 15. Nobody on this side will get that much exposure to our witness, not even close.
Yes, he's right that historically that's been the way. It used to be that the NDP held that position. The reason was that nobody had the power to change it. When we had minority governments, we discussed it every time to see if maybe we thought the order was fair to all the parties, but we didn't have the votes to carry the day. This has been raised by the NDP.
I think it is a valid question. We've now gone from 12 members to 10 members, so does the speaking order still make sense? I'm not sure how we resolve this, Mr. Chair. You haven't told us yet how this is going to be resolved.
We're not in favour of the status quo. At the very most I think we would be prepared to offer keeping the Liberal in the second round but at the end of the second round, the long second round as usual.
To clarify, Mr. Kamp, earlier you suggested removing the last Conservative, so you suggest putting the last Conservative back in and the Liberal at the end of that round.
I think we would put the last Conservative in the Liberal spot, and move the Liberal down into the last Conservative spot.
Okay.
The suggestion by Mr. Kamp is that the order in a second round would be NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, Conservative, and Liberal if there is time.
Is that correct, Mr. Kamp?
No, the first round is lengthened. You will get 10 minutes in the first round, the Conservatives will get 20, the NDP will get 10, and the Liberals will get 10. In the second round the NDP will get 10, the Conservatives will get 15, and you will get five at the end if there is time.
You move one slot. The order changes by one. You can get five extra minutes or you could get two fewer.
Does that make sense?
Do we have agreement on that?
Here's what I'm asking. In the second round the suggestion is, it's five minutes, NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, Conservative, Liberal if time allows. It's hard to write that in a routine motion, but it would be an agreement here that Mr. MacAulay would be at the end.
That gets all the members in for at least one questioning timeframe before you get your extra, if time allows.
Yes, I agree.
By comparison with the total time we are presently using, we are potentially increasing by three minutes or decreasing by two.
The first round we have already agreed to at 10 minutes. It would be in the order NDP, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, with 10-minute slots.
The second round now would be five-minute slots: NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, Conservative, and Liberal if time allows.
Mr. Sopuck.
Doing the math, for a two-hour meeting, that's 120 minutes. We have 70 minutes for questioning, so that's...60 minutes for witnesses. That seems reasonable to me.
The math works, I think.
I appreciate everyone's agreement on this. As has been stated here several times today, this committee operates a little differently from others, probably.
We have the witnesses here. We want to make sure that we hear what they have to say as well. We're politicians and like to hear what we have to say; however, the important thing is that the witnesses have their time to share with us the information we're looking to gather.
Are we good with that?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: I thank members for their indulgence here.
Mr. Chisholm, did you have a question?
Mr. Chairman, I submitted a notice of motion to the clerk earlier this week.
Georges, do you have it with you?
I just want to make sure that I have the opportunity to table it.
Can we circulate it now?
Mr. Chisholm, you are providing notice of motion. I know you circulated it earlier, so you're providing notice of motion.
I'm just providing notice. If I may, I'll quickly read it into the record:
That the Committee immediately begin an examination of the library closure at the Pacific Region Headquarters Library, Vancouver; the Pacific Biological Station Library, Nanaimo; the Eric Marshall Aquatic Research Library, Winnipeg; the Maurice Lamontagne Institute Library, Mont-Joli; the Mere Juliette Library of the Gulf Fisheries Centre, Moncton; the St, Andrews Biological Station Library, St. Andrews; and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Centre Library, St. John's, based on accusations that the Department of Fisheries & Oceans destroyed valuable and irreplaceable research, including research papers that were thrown in the dumpster; and, that the witnesses include officials from the Department of Fisheries & Oceans, Library and Archives Canada, and researchers who depend on these libraries for their work.
I want to move that, Mr. Chairman.
I am concerned. I've heard from some of the officials that this is preposterous and so on. If that's so, let's get the information before us and be clear, because it has caused a lot of concern among people I've talked to. If it's not the case, then let's dampen it down. If it is the case, let's figure out how we can correct it.
That's the basis of my motion.
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer