Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries
Issue 1 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 6, 1997
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries met this day at 9:15 a.m. to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Mr. Paul Benoit, Clerk of the committee: Honourable senators, I see a quorum. I am Paul Benoit, the clerk of this committee.
Our first item of business is the election of a chairman. I am ready to receive nominations.
Senator Perrault: I move that Senator Comeau be Chairman of the committee.
Mr. Benoit: Are there any other nominations?
Senator Petten: I move that nominations close.
Mr. Benoit: It has been moved that Senator Comeau be the Chairman. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr. Benoit: The motion is carried. Therefore, I invite Senator Comeau to assume the chair.
Senator Gérald Comeau (Chairman) in the Chair.
Senator Petten: Mr. Chairman, if I might, I welcome the new clerk of our committee on behalf of us all.
The Chairman: Mr. Benoit is no stranger to fisheries, and we indeed welcome him to the committee.
I thank the members for their confidence in me. I will make every endeavour to ensure that that confidence is well placed. I am the servant of the committee.
The next item of business is the election of the Deputy Chairman.
Senator Robertson: I move that Senator Perrault be the Deputy Chairman of the committee.
The Chairman: Are there any further nominations?
Senator Jessiman: I move that nominations cease.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: It is passed unanimously that Senator Perrault be the Deputy Chairman of the committee.
Senator Perrault: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues.
The Chairman: It will be a pleasure to work with you, Senator Perrault.
The next item on the agenda is with regard to the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.
Senator Stewart: I move:
That, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the Chair, the Deputy Chairmanand one other member of the Committee to be designated after the usual consideration;
That the Subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the Committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses and schedule hearings; and
That the Subcommittee report its decisions to the Committee.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
The next item concerns the printing of the committee's proceedings.
Senator Petten: I move:
That the committee print 450 copies of its proceedings and the Chairman be authorized to adjust this number based on demand.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
The next item concerns holding meetings without quorum.
Senator Jessiman: I move:
That, pursuant to Rule 89, the Chairman be authorized to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the printing of the evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that a representative of each party is present.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
Item six on the agenda concerns the reporting of expenses.
Senator Rossiter: I move:
That, pursuant to Rule 104, the Chairman be authorized to report expenses incurred by the committee in the last session.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
I need now a motion about research staff.
Senator Losier-Cool: I move:
That the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign a research officer to the committee;
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to retain the services of such experts as may be required by the work of the Committee; and
That the Chairman, on behalf of the committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries and draft reports.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
The next item concerns authority to commit funds and certify accounts.
Senator Losier-Cool: I move:
That, pursuant to section 32 of the Financial Administration Act, authority to commit funds be conferred on the Chairman or in his absence, the Deputy Chairman; and
That, pursuant to section 34 of the Financial Administration Act, and Guideline 3:05 of Appendix II of the Rules of the Senate, authority for certifying accounts payable by the committee be conferred on the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman, and the Clerk of the committee.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
The ninth item on the agenda involves travel.
Senator Petten: I move, Mr. Chairman:
That the committee empower the Chairman to designate, as required, one or more members of the committee and/or such staff as may be necessary to travel on assignment on behalf of the committee.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
The next item deals with travel expenses of witnesses. The motion I seek should state:
That, pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witnesses expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for no more than two witnesses from any one organization and payment will take place upon application.
Before someone moves this motion, if I recall correctly from last year, our rule of thumb was to limit this to one witness, as far as possible, even though this authorizes two witnesses. With your concurrence, we would try to continue with this rule of thumb. However, this would authorize us to have two witnesses, if necessary.
Senator Stewart: Mr. Chairman, has it been the practice to reimburse one or more witnesses from many of the organizations that attend? How do you decide whether the representatives of an organization will be reimbursed at all?
The Chairman: Up to now, depending on the subject-matter of the study or a bill, the practice has been that if the steering committee feels that we should have, for example, a witness from Newfoundland, we might seek out a group and request that they be invited. At that point, we limit it to one witness, unless there was some compelling evidence why we might need two witnesses from the same organization.
If we felt that we needed to see more than one organization, obviously we would try to seek these individuals to appear before us. Again, we would try to limit it to one person per organization, even though we have the authority to have two.
Does that respond to your question, Senator Stewart?
Senator Stewart: It certainly helps.
Senator Rossiter: Mr. Chairman, sometimes witnesses appear before the Fisheries committee in the House of Commons. What would we do in such a case?
The Chairman: First, I will place a special request on the committee's behalf to retain the researcher we had in the last session of Parliament. We would ask the researcher to keep an eye on which witnesses were coming so we could coincide a visit to the Commons Fisheries committee with an attendance here. This would save money for the tax payer.
Senator Rossiter: Sometimes witnesses might have to stay two nights because of the travel. You could, therefore, coordinate with the House of Commons so they pay for one night and we pay for the other.
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Jessiman: There was talk in another committee, or perhaps it was the Senate, about witnesses being given 60 days to send in their accounts. Will that apply here?
Mr. Benoit: That has been adopted Senate-wide, although there is the exceptional power that you would have in certain cases to waive the 60 days. It will now appear on the witness expense claim form that is distributed to the witnesses.
Senator Robertson: With regard to the witnesses and paying for their expenses, the researcher will coordinate with the House of Commons, if it is on a specific issue and not a bill. However, until we get pre-study, we cannot save the money on legislation, which is another reason for having pre-study.
Senator Stewart: Let us not get into that here.
The Chairman: That is a subject for a future meeting.
Senator Petten: When we say we will be paying expenses for witnesses, we are referring to people we invite. For instance, if fish company "X" wishes to attend, they may do so at their expense. We are talking specifically about people we invite.
The Chairman: You are right. Let me give you an example. If, for example, a group from the West Coast wants to appear before us and made such a request to talk about the salmon treaty, for example, and Senator Perrault indicated to the committee that it is an extremely important subject and that we should accept the request, we might consider at that point inviting them to appear because of the importance of the subject-matter.
We are on the travel expenses item. I would accept a motion.
Senator Butts: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
Next is Item No. 11, electronic media coverage of public meetings.
Senator Losier-Cool: I move:
That the Chairman be authorized to seek authority from the Senate to permit coverage by electronic media of the committee's public proceedings with the least possible disruption to its hearings; and
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to allow such coverage at its discretion.
The Chairman: I am not a great fan of this.
Senator Adams: Before it passes, how does that system work now? We do not need a budget for that, I hope. Is it up to the chairman to make the choice if a meeting will be televised or not?
The Chairman: It is up to the steering committee.
Senator Adams: If something is important is being discussed in the committee, how is that decision made?
The Chairman: My understanding is that a request would come to the chair, but I would not have the power to make a decision on my own. I would seek the approval of the steering committee for authority. It would go to the steering committee, and I can tell you now I do not think the steering committee would take a decision lightly on this.
Senator Adams: Do they simply make a video of the meeting, or is it broadcast live?
The Chairman: It could be both.
Mr. Benoit: This is for the Cable Public Affairs Channel, CPAC. They would tape it. Typically it would be broadcast several days later, usually within the week, but it would not be a live telecast.
Senator Perrault: Is it their final decision whether to carry it or not?
Mr. Benoit: Yes. The Senate has an agreement with CPAC whereby CPAC has agreed to broadcast up to eight hours a week of Senate committee meetings, so there may be a bit of competition. It could be that two or three committees are vying for the same time. However, that should not be too much of a problem because they can always hold off until the following week to actually broadcast the proceedings.
There are two stages. The first stage is where you would get the general permission from the chamber to do this, and, once you have that, you do not need to act on it. It would be left to the discretion of the steering committee.
Senator Rossiter: Further to all that, is there a schedule so we can tell our witnesses that a meeting would be broadcast at a particular time?
Mr. Benoit: That is a very good point, senator. They were hoping to get a little more predictability from CPAC. My experience is that they are prepared to let us know when it will go on about 36 hours before the actual broadcast.
Senator Rossiter: Do they ever put a schedule on the screen for the next two days or something?
Mr. Benoit: No, but I am sure they are conscious of that.
Senator Rossiter: Of course, it would be subject to change in case of emergency, such as a sudden press conference.
The Chairman: Your steering committee will be take this seriously. It is not something on which I would venture out on my own at all.
Senator Adams: Mr. Chairman, sometimes we have more than two or three committees sitting at the same time. There must be some form of priority. Is CPAC able to cover three or four committees at the same time?
Mr. Benoit: They only have so much in the way of equipment. I know they have acquired a bit more equipment to be able to cover at least two committees. The new committee rooms are being equipped for that, so there should be enhanced capability to do taping.
Senator Adams: That is why I am asking. If we have interesting witnesses, say we will be talking about seal hunts, and we feel it should be televised, and some other committee such as Energy or Transport wants to televise at the same time, who has the choice?
Mr. Benoit: They both may be taped, but the question is which will be broadcast first.
The Chairman: Are we agreed to the motion, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
The next item is time slots for regular meetings. We have two time possibilities: on Tuesdays at 3:15 to 5:15 or when the Senate rises, whichever comes later; or on Thursday mornings from 8:30 to 10:30. These are the two choices.
Mr. Benoit: They are periods given to us.
Senator Losier-Cool: Do you have all the committees on the list there? Do you have the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages? I believe that is on Tuesday at 3:15. I chair that committee.
Senator Perrault: I would favour Thursday, for the simple reason that when you travel from Vancouver to Ottawa, the plane arrives at about four o'clock in the afternoon. It is far better for west coasters, as Senator Carney is aware.
The Chairman: I prefer Thursday mornings as well.
Senator Jessiman: Would we always be through by 10:30?
The Chairman: Definitely. That will cause difficulties for those who sit on committees such Internal, Scrutiny, Foreign Affairs, and Agriculture.
Senator Rossiter: What time does Agriculture meet?
The Chairman: Agriculture and Foreign Affairs are at the same time, from 8:30 to 10:30.
Senator Carney: That is a problem for me.
The Chairman: For the time being, can we leave it to the chair to try to negotiate something, if he can, and perhaps come back to you with other time possibilities? Do I sense that Thursday mornings is the better of the two if we are stuck with these times? Thursday mornings it is, unless your chair and steering committee are able to juggle something really fantastic and pull some rabbits out of some hats. We will leave it at that.
Senator Adams: Mr. Chairman, if something is urgent, we can always make changes to our schedule.
Senator Perrault: That is always the case.
The Chairman: Tuesday or Wednesday nights are usually good. For example, if witnesses are coming to Ottawa to give presentations in the other place, perhaps we could try to accommodate them and save them another trip by fitting them into our schedule.
Senator Jessiman: For the next meeting, there is an article concerning the "Fishery Private Property versus the Common Good", written by Senator Gerald Comeau. It is in the Telegraph Journal, and it is also found in yesterday's Quorum. We should also be concerned about the decision in the courts of New Brunswick that the Indians own all the land in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Senator Perrault: Is that a judgment of the courts?
Senator Jessiman: Yes. I assume it will go to the Supreme Court.
Senator Robertson: The 3:15 to 5:15 time slot has been offered to a number of committees. However, the Senate rarely adjourns by 3:15 on a Tuesday. Also, remember that our caucus has regional caucuses at 6:00 o'clock every Tuesday. I do not know why they are insisting on that time slot. I think it will to be difficult to force that time slot on anyone.
The Chairman: I would invite all members of the committee to give me a wish list containing preferential time slots, and I will endeavour to arrive at some kind of solution.
I wish to seek guidance from the committee on another matter. We will not be receiving any legislation before March or April of next year, and that will probably be the Fisheries Act. It will be some time yet before any legislation reaches us.Do we, as a committee, wish to continue to pursue what we began last year, namely, the study of privatization? I have spoken to the members who served on the previous steering committee -- and I hope they will return as members of our current steering committee -- and there was interest in pursuing this privatization study. We have put in quite a bit of time on it.
Senator Petten: If I may interrupt you, I think the work we did last year was good work. I do not think we should just drop it now. It will involve more time, effort and money either to catch up or to do another study. I think we should continue with the study that we undertook before Parliament was dissolved. We were going in the right direction.
The Chairman: I agree. I think it was the right direction. It did not stop us from working on other subjects as we went along, but it was an interesting topic. With your continued guidance of the steering committee, perhaps we can pursue putting this study together again.
Do I have consensus on this guidance to the steering committee?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: It might be useful to put that in the form of a motion. We could then present the budget to you at the next meeting. With that in mind, would someone move that motion?
Senator Petten: I so move.
The Chairman: In order for us to get permission from the Chamber, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Petten that the committee reactivate the privatization study we had undertaken in the previous Parliament.
Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
Senator Jessiman: Is there anything this committee can do to try to get the federal government and the provincial government in B.C. to work together?
The Chairman: That might be one of the subjects coming up. Senator Carney indicated to us that she wanted to mention something.
Before we do that, one of the items that I would like committee to consider -- and this was presented to me by Senator Rompkey the other day -- is whether we should put forward in the Senate some kind of motion concerning seals. This should not be done through the committee, but as individual senators we might wish to talk about the seal hunt and the lobby that has been promoted in the major national newspapers recently. Each of us might want to speak to a motion if it were presented in the Senate at some point. I raise that for your consideration.
Senator Carney: I wish the record of this committee to indicate that I am in a clear position of conflict of interest. I have told our selection committee through three successive Parliaments that I am in a conflict of interest position, and they do not seem to pay any attention. Until this matter is resolved, I feel that I cannot bring anything forward. I would like committee members to understand that.
I do not know why we break our own code of ethics, but that is what they insist on doing. It is their problem; they will have to sort it out. In the meantime, you should know about it.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Carney.
Senator Perrault: You can certainly attend the meetings and contribute, but you will not have voting rights.
Senator Carney: I would not waste the time of the committee on that. A conflict of interest is a conflict of interest. Either I can be a member of the committee or I cannot.
The Chairman: Has your position been considered by the Rules Committee to ensure that you are in a conflict-of-interest position?
Senator Carney: I have written to our management on this issue through three successive Parliaments. It is up to them to deal with it.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
I met a group yesterday from the West Coast who expressed an interest in appearing before the committee at some point. I will be seeking the advice of our steering committee on this request before I pursue it any further. They wanted to address the issue of the training of displaced workers who are experiencing some problems regarding their employment due to the lack of salmon on the West Coast. I will be presenting this request to our steering committee so that I can obtain their views on it.
Senator Petten: Perhaps we should all be thinking about what witnesses we should bring before the committee to explain where we are going with our particular agenda right now.
A few weeks ago, when I was overseas, I spoke to the Honourable Doug Kidd, Speaker of the House of Representatives in New Zealand. Prior to this, he was the fisheries minister for that country. We had a chat about what was happening over here and what they were doing over there. Phillip Major, an industrial consultant, was retained by the government of New Zealand to advise them on what they should be doing. Presently, New Zealand is a role model for the fisheries in the rest of the world. It is at the top of the heap. I am not saying that we should jump in and hear from him right away, but we should be investigating what other people are doing. I am sure my colleagues have names of other people they could suggest, but perhaps we could determine what it would cost to have this gentleman give us a presentation on this committee.
The Chairman: I should like to extend an official welcome to the two new members of our committee, Senator Butts and Senator Robichaud.
Senator Robichaud is no stranger to fisheries issues, having served as the minister responsible for fisheries in the Parliament in the other place. We welcome Senator Robichaud, who will be able to contribute greatly to our knowledge of the fisheries.
Senator Butts, who has worked with coastal communities in Atlantic Canada, can bring a positive perspective to the impact of government policies on our coastal communities which rely heavily on fisheries.
We welcome both of you and the contributions which we know you will make to the committee.
The committee adjourned.