Evidence of meeting #24 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was acoa.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I had requested consideration of a motion that the following be reported to the House at the earliest opportunity:
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans recommends that the government restore full funding to the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation to enable this organization and its partners to pursue its mission to make available to the fishing industry the largest and best-equipped body of experts in fisheries-related science and technology in the country for the benefit of the industry's long-term competitiveness and sustainability.
We heard from witnesses from the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation. As well, we did gratefully receive input from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. We have collected a significant amount of data evidence on this particular subject, not only through the conduct of collection of evidence through the Atlantic lobster study tour through Atlantic Canada but as well through the witnesses we heard here in Ottawa.
I'm of the belief that we've collected enough data now, enough evidence to form conclusions and to vote on this particular motion as it stands.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
I spoke to Mr. Byrne about this the day before yesterday.
I wonder if you would consider an amendment to the motion to make it a little bit more plausible, at least for this side. I have that amendment, if I could put it into the record:
That the following be reported to the House at the earliest opportunity: Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans recommends that the government reconsider its decision to discontinue funding to the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation, recognizing its mission to make available to the fishing industry the largest and best-equipped body of experts in fisheries-related science and technology in the country for the benefit of the industry's long-term competitiveness and sustainability.
It's very hard for us on this side, obviously, to accept the motion as it now stands, but I think this is a motion that I, at least, could live with.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Mr. Van Kesteren proposes an amendment to the motion as made by Mr. Byrne.
Do you have a copy of the text, Mr. Van Kesteren?
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Mr. Van Kesteren would so move the following amendment:
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans recommends that the government reconsider its decision to discontinue funding to the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation, recognizing its mission to make available to the fishing industry the largest and best-equipped body of experts in fisheries-related science and technology in the country for the benefit of the industry's long-term competitiveness and sustainability.
On the amendment, Mr. Stoffer.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Mr. Chairman, I thank my honourable colleague, Mr. Van Kesteren, very much for that. I appreciate the sentiment of what he's trying to do. In many cases I would agree with that amendment. The one word, though, that is challenging for me is the word “reconsider”.
We heard from the gentleman from ACOA when I asked him point-blank if there has been any reconsideration, if they will rethink it. When I asked him if the decision was final he said yes, even though when I asked him to take the decision back to government, he said that he would. He told us that the decision was more or less a fait accompli and that was it, and I firmly believe that if we ask the government to reconsider, they'll say, “Well, that's nice, but no, we've already done it”.
As much as I'd like to agree with my colleague on the amendment, I would have to say no. It's the word “reconsider” that I would find most difficult to agree with.
Thank you.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Thank you very much.
I, too, have great respect for my colleague, but “reconsider” is a problem, because I know it's the job of this committee to evaluate and to recommend to the minister, and it would be pretty obvious to me that without a strong recommendation from this committee to restore, it will not be restored.
Peter is right. ACOA has indicated that they're not going to be involved. It looks like the government will not be involved unless this committee's recommendation--and perhaps even with this committee's recommendation--is to restore. If they're wondering about re-evaluating or evaluating the situation, it's been evaluated to death, and the CCFI is about to go under.
Without a strong recommendation from this committee to restore it, without a push from this committee, we will lose this very valuable resource for the industry at a time when the industry desperately needs this research and innovation.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate what my colleagues are saying. I would just emphasize that regardless of the motion, the decision is still the government's, so I think it has a little more force if we come across as a committee. This is something I know I can live with and I think my colleagues can live with. I feel that the other one is.... Regardless of how we feel, the minister still has to make his decision. I understand what you're saying, but we're still in the same boat.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was going to reiterate the same comments Mr. Stoffer made. The question was asked of Mr. Comerford: is the door closed? His answer was “I guess my answer to that would be yes” and he said that Minister MacKay and Mr. Ashfield have written and said there is no more funding coming. I understand that our Conservative colleagues might be in a bit of a tough spot in this particular circumstance, but this strong wording is needed.
If it gives you any leverage, when the guys from CCFI were here, they told us that they had written support from all parties. They've had written support from the NDP members and the New Brunswick members. I think what we need to do is add our names to that particular list. I understand that it may put you in a bit of a pinch, but one of your colleagues has already come on board with it, so we just need a few more.
This is an important motion to move forward with. Again, it's all about the “reconsider” part. We need to make sure this funding is restored to get them through this year.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am not worrying as much about the success or failure of this particular motion as I am worrying about the survival and development of the fishing industry.
I think the problem with my colleague Mr. Byrne's motion is that it presents the government with an offer it must refuse. The government and ACOA are not going to restore full funding, but if we provided more flexibility in our motion, we could achieve our goals.
It's clear that none of us is very satisfied with the notice that was given and things like that, so I'm on board with much of what's behind your motion, Mr. Byrne. I do think, though, that if we provide more flexibility, if there are different ways in which the government can, for instance, provide six months' funding with conditions or 12 months' funding with conditions, or things like that, we're more likely to succeed in what all of us desire to achieve here. But this is going to fail. If we allow the motion as you've drafted it to proceed, it will go nowhere.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think that our colleague Mr. Weston's comments pretty well sum it all up, that the government has found a position that it's not going to bend on. I don't know if he's speaking for the government itself or using his own perception of what the government's actions will be.
I think the words of Mr. Weston pretty well reinforce the essential nature of the original motion. I'll paraphrase Mr. Weston: the government is going to do nothing with this. What would give us any confidence that the government would do anything with a milder, more tepid, more flexible motion? It would do less than nothing. That would be my response.
This committee has reviewed this. What the amendment suggests is that the government should review this. Now, the government has already reviewed this and rejected it.
The committee has reviewed this. We'll find out where the committee stands on this, whether or not yet another governmental review is required or whether or not the committee itself.... We have conducted a fairly exhaustive, intensive study on the CCFI, having heard from witnesses and stakeholders in the field through our Atlantic lobster study, having heard directly from CCFI, having heard directly from the government itself, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. We've conducted the review.
Now I think it's important for us as a committee to actually have confidence in our own capacity to make specific recommendations to the government, not simply to defer that responsibility back to the government and abdicate the responsibility to provide counsel to the government. That's what the function of a standing committee is. When we review a bill, we don't review a bill with the intent of recommending changes to the bill. We change the bill. That's what we do. We change the bill and then send it back to the House.
With this particular motion, having conducted a due diligence study of the issue, we are recommending a specific course of action to the government, not recommending that they study it further. We have a level of competence here to be able to make this decision and to make a specific recommendation based on what we heard as evidence.
That is why I will not be supporting the amendment. I genuinely, sincerely appreciate your intent and the spirit of it. If we didn't have such exhaustive information before us, if I did not feel truly competent enough to make a specific recommendation, I'd be inclined to follow your advice and ask the government to reconsider here. But we have the data, we have the evidence we need. There are no holes to fill here.
We are in a position where we as a standing committee can make a specific recommendation to the government with confidence and with competence. So I would ask that the amendment be defeated and the original motion be brought forward and accepted, and that this be reported to the House on that basis.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With all due respect to Gerry, I'm going to disagree, which he probably won't be surprised about.
Having said that, I guess, based on this whole thing and the evidence we heard, the only open question to me is, is it not a government decision to do this? Obviously it is. They've done the analysis.
It would seem that the R and D activities are picking up. The questions that are still open to me are how was this communicated and what was the definition of “sustainability plan” going forward? Everybody has a different definition of sustainability plan. To some, sustainability plan means you get your own money from private sources. Other people say “I'm going to develop a sustainability plan that's going to constantly rely on government funding”. Personally, I don't think that's what we should be doing.
For me to say “restore full funding”, to commit to a program over five years—and I'm assuming that's what that means. But Mr. Andrews said “get them through the years”, so I'm not sure what it means: five years, one year? What are we saying here?
I'm just not prepared to commit to that at this point in time. I think “reconsider the decision” is something to say. Maybe it gives the government an opportunity to go back to them and say, “Look, let's make this clear: sustainability means this. We're going to do the funding for this for this long for you to understand and come up with that sustainability plan, and then we're going to be done”.
Right now, I can't support “restore full funding” because I don't know what it means.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
I'm always surprised and pleased when governments look for partners to reduce the costs to taxpayers. CCFI was asked by ACOA over the years, when they were getting $2 million a year in funding, to look for other partners through either industry or other things. Here you have the four Atlantic premiers agreeing to put $400,000 of provincial money into this, plus whatever industry money can follow. Given more time, it is quite possible CCFI could be self-financing in some way through other agencies, industry, or whatever. But they're not there yet.
For the government to not seek partnership with the CCFI and basically say “We're done now, you're on your own, good luck and goodbye” is a mistake. They should be looking for partnership and for the one-third, one-third, and one-third in investments. They do it with infrastructure and other things. I think this is an opportunity for the federal government to work with provincial governments and eventually wean them off the road they're on.
I believe my colleague Mr. Weston indicated that might be quite possible in six months or a year. I don't think we're asking for five-year funding in this regard, because things can change right away. We just need something they can get now to keep the doors open; otherwise the doors will close--that's the danger. If we don't do the ACOA and DFO funding, ACOA funding will cease, DFO funding will cease, and provincial funding will cease. So all those additional funds going to CCFI will cease, because everything's based on the funding from ACOA.
So I hope my colleagues on all sides will be able to move as strong an amendment as possible to advise the government that we're not amused--as the Queen would say--and see what we can do to move this forward.
Thank you.
11:35 a.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
I feel that our job is precisely to take a stand on issues which may be controversial or contentious but are of concern to our fishing industry. I first wanted to hear ACOA's views to better understand what is happening and be in a position to make a better decision.
We indeed heard the people from ACOA. I do not want to get back to Peter's comments, but I also noted, when questioning these people, that the decision seemed to be final. I think this is the basic argument underlying the initial proposal.
We may have considered amending the initial proposal had the ACOA people shown that they were ready to reconsider the decision or to take other considerations into account. However, this was not the answer that I and others got. I think it was important to give the ACOA people a chance to make their views known before voting on the motion. Now, it is done. We heard them and we can pass judgment.
I thought you had an interesting way of putting things, Mr. Van Kesteren. It was very interesting but given ACOA's position, I feel that we would just be gaining some time without dealing with anything whatsoever.
In my opinion—and you already know that since I said it repeatedly—not enough research and development is being done, and I would like our committee to eventually consider that. There are many things we know about the moon, but we know precious little about our oceans. I find this absurd and abnormal. Climate change is affecting us increasingly almost on a daily basis. We do not know what is going to happen to our marine resources, what to expect or what to be concerned about.
I feel that R&D and knowledge would allow us to make better decisions and have a better vision of the development of marine resources and the industry. Unfortunately, there is an obvious tendency to set aside many issues. I am not only talking about Quebec issues but there are some very recent examples in Quebec of this kind of attitude, which I think is improper.
I thought it would be important to hear part of the initial proposal, which is ACOA's version. I heard it and I am now ready to take a stand. We will see how the government will react to our action. Obviously, we cannot expect the motion to carry unanimously. This is better and will always be.
By the way, I wanted to thank you all for your cooperation regarding my motion on the seal hunt. Getting back to this issue, I think we should take a firm stand given the attitude we have to deal with. I asked questions in my own way. These were the best question I could ask. ACOA's representative likely gave us his best answer but it was not enough. It was not satisfactory because I could not see any glimmer of hope. There was no light at the end of the tunnel that would have helped us get across. This is why I shall vote against the amendment and for the initial motion.