Fisheries Committee on Dec. 5th, 2013

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Let me follow on a question that Mr. MacAulay asked. I'm looking for a clearer answer.

The question that's been raised back in Newfoundland and Labrador is why the issue of seals wasn't made a make-or-break issue at the CETA talks.

[David Bevan]

Again, I think the decision was made to separate it, to continue our challenge, and not have it subject to being negotiated off the table as a result of CETA.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Critics at home would say that the fact it wasn't left on the table as a make-or-break issue looks as though the seal industry was sacrificed.

[David Bevan]

I think you have to look at it from both sides of that question. If you put it on the table as a make-or-break issue, what would happen? Would we forgo all those millions of dollars or not? By keeping it separate, it allows us to continue our challenge, that process, without having it subject to the CETA, subject to the arrangement, or subject to having everybody looking at it from the total and putting on that equation.

The decision was made that we'd be better all around to move ahead on CETA and keep our flexibility to move with a challenge to the European ban through the WTO.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

I understand what you're saying, Mr. Bevan, and there are two ways to look at that. You're absolutely right. From Newfoundland and Labrador's perspective some people would say that it was a sacrifice because it wasn't a make-or-break issue.

I'll bring you back to another question I asked in my initial round. I asked you questions about the $280 million of federal money that was announced as compensation for the trade deal and the lifting of minimum processing requirements. A lot of people were surprised. I use the word “surprised”, but the fact is that when that news conference was held by the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador to announce this $400-million package, $280 million from the federal government, there was no federal representation at that news conference.

Again, I have to ask you this. DFO is responsible for the harvesting sector of the fisheries. The fact is that $280 million has been set aside, apparently by the federal government, to help poise our industry to capitalize on this trade deal, and DFO, the department that's responsible for this, doesn't know anything about where the $280 million is being spent. Again, I have to ask, isn't that unusual?

[David Bevan]

It's not being spent on managing the fishery; it's being spent on a provincial jurisdiction. That's why we are not involved in it. That was done between the federal government and the province. Again, if you wanted to call a provincial witness, they might have that information.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Bevan.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to read my notice of motion that I mentioned a couple of meetings ago.

The motion is:

That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans undertake a study on the impacts of the elimination of Minimum Processing Requirements in Newfoundland and Labrador as a condition of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, and that the Committee report to the House on its findings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Are you moving that motion, Mr. Cleary?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

I'd like to move that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

It's been moved by Mr. Cleary:

That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans undertake a study on the impacts of the elimination of Minimum Processing Requirements in Newfoundland and Labrador as a condition of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, and that the Committee report to the House on its findings.

On the motion, Mr. Cleary.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

I'll speak to the motion for a moment.

As I noted in my questions to Mr. Bevan and the delegation from the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, all sides at home in Newfoundland and Labrador, from the processors, the fish plant operator, the Fish, Food and Allied Workers union to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador have come out and said that they are in agreement with this deal.

There are definite positives and they're undeniable. The fact that these tariffs are being lifted is something which the industry has called for, for decades. The positives are undeniable. but the negatives are also there, especially when you hear the media play, again out of the European Union, where they're lauding this deal, saying that it's going to give EU countries and processors access to Canadian fish. When we hear that kind of media play coming out of the EU, that causes real concern. It also causes us concern, as I asked you a few moments ago, in terms of the $280 million, and the fact that the federal department responsible for the harvesting, for our fishing industry, is not aware of what the $280 million will be spent on. I find that unusual.

There's no doubt that the lifting of minimum processing requirements has been in place—again, it's provincial legislation—in Newfoundland and Labrador for years. The lifting of those minimum processing requirements will have an impact on the processing sector, but what's not clear is what the impact will be. How many jobs will be lost? Will processing jobs be lost? The answer to that seems to be yes. The number of jobs is not known and nobody seems to be able to answer that.

The point has been made that the processing sector falls within provincial jurisdiction, and it does, but the lifting of minimum processing requirements is a result of this federal trade deal. From my perspective, this may be provincial jurisdiction, but again, the federal government has a role in this.

I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who's been involved in covering the fishing industry for the better part of 20 years. It's been 21 years now since we had a moratorium on northern cod. For the first time in 500 years, back in 1992, we saw the shutdown of our fishing industry. It's now 21 years after—

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

On a point of order and a point of clarification, are we discussing the motion that's on the table, or are we still questioning the witnesses?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

We're discussing the motion that's on the table.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

It appears to me as though the questions are being put to the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

They're not going to answer the questions that are being put to them, Ms. Davidson. I would assume Mr. Cleary has put them in a rhetorical sense to make his point. I assure you, they're not going to answer the questions that are put. This is a debate now on the motion that's before this committee.

Ms. Davidson.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Do I have the floor?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

No, Mr. Cleary has the floor. Your point of order is over.

Mr. Cleary, the floor is still yours.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Chair, to sum up, it's been 21 years since the first of our groundfish fisheries was shut down with a commercial moratorium, and there is no recovery plan. What's missing from our industry is any kind of long-term vision for the groundfish fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now we're lifting minimum processing requirements, which is one piece of the puzzle. What astounds me and what I can't figure out is that for a lot of people at home, the question that's been raised is how this one piece of the puzzle will fit into the big picture. We have an absence of a long-term vision. We have no recovery plan, and now we're lifting minimum processing requirements. People don't see how this is going to shake out in terms of the future of our fishery.

In that light, I ask that we undertake the study.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Cleary.

Mr. Kamp.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Mr. Chair, I do have some things to say about the motion, but now that I have the floor, even though this is a very positive issue for the Government of Canada, I think that in fairness we should follow our usual practice when we're talking about future committee business, and we should go in camera.

I so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

It's been moved by Mr. Kamp that the committee go in camera.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

I would ask for a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

We will have a recorded vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

We will suspend while we go in camera.

We thank the officials for being here today. We really do appreciate it. Thank you.

[Proceedings continue in camera]