Fisheries Committee on March 6th, 2008

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

How many articles have been completed so far?

[John O'Neill]

Of the fishery subsidies, of the eight articles, we've done article 1, article 2, and article 5. We've had some discussions on the special and differential treatment in article III and a very brief discussion of the general prohibition or adverse effects provision in article 4. There has not been very much discussion of the rest of the articles. Those are the administrative parts, such as notification and dispute settlement, which are still very important.

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

So there's still--

[John O'Neill]

There's still a lot of work to do.

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

--a lot of work to be done.

In a newspaper article, one of our committee members is reported as saying it worries him that no objections have been made by Canada to these rules. He's referring to some of the things that bother him. Would you take issue with the statement that no objections have been made by Canada to these rules?

[John O'Neill]

Yes, I would. As I stated last week, we have made numerous interventions during the negotiating meetings and in meetings with the chairman, particularly about the income support and port infrastructure and about the lack of an exemption for programs in support of small-scale fishing. We've made those several times.

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

In terms of the timeline in that same article, individuals are encouraged by this member to write their MPs. It says, “Once April comes and Canada gives its nod to these WTO rules, the room for negotiation or to voice protest is next to non-existent”. What's likely to happen by April, as you see the process unfolding?

[John O'Neill]

Right now there isn't a meeting scheduled yet to continue the fishery subsidies discussions. We hope there will be one in early April, and then once the first reading of the entire text has been done, the chair has said he will produce a first revision. He has even said it will be the first of probably many.

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

It sounds like all three of you are saying that it certainly wouldn't be as simple as Canada giving its nod of approval to the draft text.

[John O'Neill]

To this draft text?

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

Yes.

[John O'Neill]

No, neither for Canada nor many other countries in the world. It's not in that shape. It certainly is nowhere close to a final text.

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

Okay.

If there's more time, I think Mike has one question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

You have about a minute and a half, Mr. Allen.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just have a quick follow-on to that. If Canada and one or two other countries have a significant issue with any of these, whether it be income support or infrastructure, or whatever it happens to be, even in the next revision in the text, by definition of consensus it's not going to go forward if two or three countries don't agree. Is that true?

[John O'Neill]

At the end, after the next revision, I fully expect I won't get everything I want. If I do, then I will be very happy; but I expect that I will have to negotiate through several revisions of this text to achieve my objectives.

In the end, if I don't, it will go to senior officials and eventually to ministers. If the ministers do not agree, it will not be approved by the members. The WTO doesn't approve anything, but the membership do.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Okay.

You made an interesting statement about aquaculture and inland fisheries, putting a “but” in your statement. I think the words you used were “to ensure that aquaculture and inland fisheries do not sneak back into the text”. Was there a time when that was in the text?

[John O'Neill]

No, it was never in the text, because this is our first draft, but it was something that was discussed early on. I won't say there was consensus, but basically the vast majority of the members in the negotiations had agreed that the subsidy rules existing under the agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures were adequate to deal with any subsidy issues in aquaculture or inland fisheries.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

We're going to a second round of five minutes each.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, gentlemen.

I'm certainly pleased that my good friend Mr. Kamp keeps on top of my press releases. That's good.

I don't recall saying there would be no possibility, but we did have witnesses before the committee who indicated that we're getting well down the road and that Canada has probably not been as strong at the negotiating table on these issues as it should have been. So I guess we have to listen to witnesses.

One question I would like to ask you is that if this should go down the road, and there are declines in the fishery, and those types of things, can this have an effect on who rules on the subsidies? What I'm thinking about is the lobster fishery, where you have some areas that have declined and need employment insurance and the small craft harbours programs, and those types of things that are in place.

Could this have an effect down the road if it is adopted?

[John O'Neill]

I'm not sure I understand your question.

If there's a decline in the fisheries—

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Yes.

[John O'Neill]

—would the subsidy disciplines, or whatever might eventually be agreed to, hamper assistance?

It would depend on the type of assistance and on what is eventually agreed to.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Obviously, then, gentlemen, you feel there is not a great problem with our subsidies.

I have two questions. If there is no problem, why do all of the things that are so important to the inshore fishery end up in the red box? If I understand correctly, that box is hard to negotiate out of.

Also, I would like to ask you, has anybody at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans been clear that subsidies are not a problem with overfishing in this country?