Fisheries Committee on May 7th, 2009

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we just want to make it clear what we are suggesting here. You can talk about speaking for the government, of course, and I think we all recognize that none of us on either side of this table are doing that. We are trying to determine what action this committee will take on this particular issue. We've seen the motion and we are sympathetic to the intention behind it. We've said that.

We acknowledge the fact that we heard from Mr. Bonnell and that we heard from ACOA. ACOA I think made some comments that we shouldn't ignore. One thing they did say was that as their mandate has currently evolved over the years, this kind of funding no longer fits within it.

We think it's prudent for us to ask the government to reconsider its decision, because it's going to have to go back. It's not like here's the mandate and it fits within it, but they decided not to fund it because they didn't get enough points on the system. It's not like an infrastructure application. It's not like that.

ACOA has told us that it no longer fits within their mandate. Really, we're asking them, the government, to find another way around that. We haven't put “ACOA” in this motion for that reason. There might be another way around that. That's why this wording has been chosen.

I should also point out that Mr. Bonnnell in an article from yesterday in the Telegraph-Journal acknowledged that ACOA has been a great supporter of the centre over the years, and that he respects the funding decision that ACOA has made in this case. I'm not sure why he said that, but he's on the record as having that position.

If the opposition members would be more comfortable with putting a timeline in place that reconsidered the decision within 30 days or so, I think Mr. Weston or one of my colleagues would be happy to move a subamendment to change this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Weston, please.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That wasn't a paraphrase, but a caricature of what I said. Ultimately and ironically, I'm trying to achieve the same goal as my colleagues opposite. I see that there could be some value in CCFI, and certainly we're all unified in our desire to make the fisheries industry a healthier one.

Mr. Byrne talked about our competency as this committee. Our competency from the several hours of review can't measure up against the decades of experience that ACOA has had with CCFI and the factors that have caused ACOA's mandate to be changed. By going beyond our competency and to use the words in the resolution as it stands, I'm saying that you're going from a win to a lose. You're going to lose my vote, which may not be consequential, but more importantly, we will lose the opportunity to revisit this by taking away any flexibility from the import of the resolution that passes from us to the minister and to ACOA.

What I'm saying to Mr. Byrne and to Mr. Stoffer and to my other colleagues is that if we're going to get a win on this, if what you want to achieve is really the survival of CCFI, if the flourishing of the fisheries industry is what you really want to achieve, then be more flexible and give the government an option, other than something called “full funding”, which sounds like you're asking for it just to remake this decision that it's already made. That's what I'm saying.

We're not the Queen. We cannot mandate, even though we would like to mandate, but we can certainly send a powerful unanimous decision if we get the resolution right.

I'll be voting in favour of the amendment, and I'll signal right now that I'll be voting against the resolution if it is unamended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Van Kesteren.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

John, you've just stated what I've always wanted to say, and you did it probably a whole lot better than I would have, except for this. Committees are interesting places. I think we've all served on committees that are very functional, and we've served on committees that are very dysfunctional. I tend to think this is a very functional committee. I say that because, other than Blaine and myself, most of you are so close to what you're representing here that you have the best interests of the fishermen and those involved in the industry at heart. I want to be part of a committee that is functional; I want to be part of a committee that works.

I know this amendment will definitely shoot a shot over the bow for the government. I know the government is definitely going to come back and ask us what we're doing. At that point, we can say, “You really need to have a second look at this.” That would be the response of this motion. The motion as it stands, I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague—John, you are absolutely right—that it is just going to close doors.

I'm suggesting that as a committee we can do something. The best way we can do what we want to accomplish is through the amended motion. I will be voting, obviously, for my motion and I would encourage and ask that my colleagues really consider this, because I believe this is something that is good for this committee and subsequently for the fishing industry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I've been around here for a few years, and I always felt that I had to represent the people I represent, or the industry or whatever. I've served in different positions in government and opposition, and I can assure you, if you check the record, you'll find I did not always toe the line with what the government wanted. Perhaps I was wrong, but my understanding is that I represent the people who elected me, and it paid off in a number of issues. Sometimes with a lot of pressure you can convince government that in fact this is the right way.

In listening to this committee, I conclude we all want the same thing. Perhaps I was naive, but I lacked fear of probably anybody around here. I felt I could say what I liked, when I liked, for the betterment of the industry, and I did in my career. The fact is that we need to send the message to government--we're not sending it to ACOA, we're sending it to government--that they need to put this funding in place. If they don't put it in place, we don't have this institution.

That's simply what we're doing. If we water it down or make it milder, then it's not going to make an issue. In my opinion, it's a large issue at a very difficult time in the fishery. I'm not going to try to discipline anybody in politics, but the fact is, you'll be rewarded politically for doing the right thing. It would look to me that doing the right thing is giving this every push you can in order to convince the government that this centre needs to proceed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Byrne.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was somewhat caught off guard by what our colleague Mr. Weston had to say. I'm not sure if this is what Mr. Weston had in mind, but it sounded as though if we give a specific recommendation to the government it will not be heard, because it's a specific call for action and this government does not respond to what may be perceived as a threat, but if we water this down and suggest that they only review it, then the government might consider it.

I wasn't quite following exactly what Mr. Weston had in mind, but if he wants to clarify it for me, that would be great.

I'd like to say something in response to the comment that we should listen more to ACOA instead of to our own intellect and our own experience and wisdom as parliamentarians, because ACOA, as a government department involved in this, has decades of experience and we only have a limited amount of experience with this. The Minister Of Fisheries and Oceans just made a decision contrary to the advice of her department. The department has 140 years of experience managing fish stocks in Atlantic Canada. The department recommended a reduction in crab quotas in the southern gulf. The minister, however, did not accept that advice, and the minister decided what was right for the industry. She has to take responsibility for that.

So the minister herself, when it comes to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, doesn't follow the advice of her department, which has decades of experience in managing the issues it has the constitutional jurisdiction and competency to review.

My concept and my perceptions of what we, as a committee, do are very different from how other members of the committee view their roles and positions. As a parliamentarian, I feel very comfortable reporting to Parliament, to the House of Commons, that we feel very strongly that the government should embark upon a specific course of action. It's not a threat. It's not an ultimatum. It's a specific recommendation of a course of action brought forward after due process and study by a standing committee of the House, consistent with 146 years of practice of this House. And it violates no standing orders or past precedent of what a standing committee does.

I'm going to read one last thing. It was stated that the amendment didn't include the word “ACOA” so that it wouldn't be provocative. The original motion didn't include the word “ACOA”; it called on the government. My motion did not include the word “ACOA”; it called on the government.

This is what Carey Bonnell, the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation, sent to me a little while ago:

I've received several calls from DFO officials wondering when we are planning to get the lobster committee up and running to move forward with the Lobster Development Agency. I reminded these same government officials that we are about to close our doors due to a lack of federal funding, and that calls may have to be addressed elsewhere to initiate the lobster round table process and the lobster development committee.

DFO officials are asking when the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation is going to get moving on the recommendation of the Atlantic lobster round table to get the Atlantic lobster development committee started so that they can get the Atlantic lobster development agency initiative started.

That being said, it sounds to me as though DFO is behind the CCFI. My original motion calls on government to restore the funding.

Let's have the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Stoffer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you.

The parliamentary secretary indicated Mr. Bonnell's release in the newspaper. Anyone who knows Mr. Bonnell knows that he never burns any bridges; he's a person who accepts decisions whether he likes them or not, because he knows he has to work with any government and any politician at any time in any industry. This is what makes him so good at his job: his practicality in dealing with government officials, bureaucrats, people in the industry, and, most importantly, fishermen.

I want to reassure my colleague Mr. Van Kesteren. I've been on the committee since 1997; we've had our differences on committees before, but this and the veterans committee are the two best committees in the House. Regardless of what comes out of this and what Mr. Weston reports in the House, this committee will still operate as one of the best committees on the planet.

We may have our slight differences on the way things are worded, but anyone who's ever negotiated collective agreements knows that one word can change the entire phrase in a collective agreement. An example is changing the word “may” to “shall”, or using the word “reconsider”.

I remind you that the report says that we “recommend”. It doesn't say we absolutely strongly will shoot the hell out of you and burn your house down if you don't do it; it just says we “recommend”. The government still has the option to say “Thank you very much for your recommendation, but go pound sand”. They will do it politely, of course. They still have the option to say no, which they may end up doing.

We have to show that at least we listened to the evidence. The evidence made it quite clear to us that the CCFI is an important industry, and we would like to recommend--not “reconsider”, because you already know what the decisions have been before--that they get going and restore the funding to it.

Basically I would say to Mr. Van Kesteren that I'm honoured to have you on the committee, sir, as well as Mr. Kamp, and we'll continue to work together. Don't worry about shots over the bow. If you want to see a shot over the bow, get EI going and you'll go crazy on that. The EI committee's gone crazy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I am going to try once more. I do not know whether Mr. Byrne is not hearing me or if he is choosing not to.

Let me try again.

You know, before my colleague Mr. Stoffer was in a wheelchair, he used to be a rugby player--

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

I still am.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

--and there's a big difference between rugby and football, as I'm sure he'll agree. In football, you hit straight-on because every inch counts. In rugby, when you tackle, you grab the opposing player and let him or her take their own weight down.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

You haven't played me, have you?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

What I'm trying to do is get you to win, Mr. Byrne, not to lose, so I'm going to move a subamendment. It's going to be a tight timeframe. My colleagues may dislike me for doing this, but I'm going to propose we add the words “within 15 days” before the words “reconsider its decision to discontinue funding”. If I could get the consensus of this committee to add that, it adds a sense of urgency. In that way we'll get a decision and we'll continue to provide ACOA and the government with an array of options that might result in keeping CCFI alive, whereas the very narrow “restore full funding” is yes or no, black and white. It's going to end up in a decision you won't like and none of us endorse.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Go ahead on the subamendment, Mr. Allen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What I was going to say applies either to the subamendment or to the amendment. It doesn't matter.

The argument doesn't appear to be about substance any more. This centre has not had A-base funding in quite a number of years. In fact, the latest funding came out of ICF, which is a temporary fund that has basically been sunsetted now. From that standpoint, I think we have to recognize that ACOA's gone to other priorities, so ACOA's off the table. I recognize that “the government” was put in here as a more general comment, and that's fine, but again I come back to the fact that this is called multi-year. What the hell does that mean?

I want to pick up on one of Peter's comments. We should be able to word this to say how we do a partnership going forward. Maybe the federal government doesn't have to be involved, and in the long run I don't think it should be involved. As we get out of this economic situation over the next year or two years, the private partners should come back in if it's that good. They should be doing this. If they think this matching service is worthwhile, then the private sector should be coming in.

I understand the challenges we're facing over the next year or two years, which is why we're putting the stimulus into the economy. To say “restore full funding”....

Somehow, some way, we have to come up with the words to say we want to go back and look at this in terms of doing it from a partnership standpoint going forward. I won't support it the way it's worded right now, because I think it lacks good business sense, quite frankly. We're not talking about substance any more; we're talking about emotion in politics.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Byrne.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the rugby versus football analogy, because at least you're letting me know that the objective here is to pull me down by my own weight--unless, of course, you're a football player.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Point well taken, because it actually segues to my next point. Having been a parliamentarian for 14 years and having suffered through six general elections and won each and every one of them, I guess I don't tackle easy. As substantial as my weight may be, maybe there's a reason why I've been able to suffer through six general elections and come out on top.

I've seen over the course of a number of years that “may” versus “shall” is an important distinction. Words do mean things in this business. Words do mean things in this place. The specificity of language, the text of language, is the construct of law. Law is interpreted by the specific meaning of words. The context of each and every individual word is uniquely important.

That's why, with all due respect, we can talk about how we'll delay a review for 15 days, then see what the review will produce, and then hold the position of the committee, the evidence that it's collected, and the discussions and rationales of the department itself, as opposed to our own collective wisdom. I don't operate in that way. I didn't come to this place as a parliamentarian to be a surrogate partial focus group voice for a government department.

I came to this place to study, to determine merit, to act, and to act with specificity. I understand, appreciate, and respect the desire to not actually engage in that particular duty, but that's the duty I feel I have after spending weeks and weeks studying this and after hearing so much testimony from stakeholders whose livelihoods are dependent upon this. My paycheque doesn't necessarily come from this decision. My paycheque comes from a whole bunch of decisions like this. And my paycheque is owed to the people who are depending on me to make good choices on their behalf when it comes to their incomes.

The Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation has been proven to be a very effective tool in making sure that the industry itself can make good use of its natural resources, that it can harvest the resources in a sustainable fashion, and that it can find markets for that product that are timely and that maximize the value of their hard work.

I won't be voting for this subamendment, nor will I be voting for the amendment, but I will be voting for the main motion on that particular principle, which is that we have decided as a committee to study this issue and we've decided to judge it. Because that was the intent: to put forward recommendations. In the context of our larger Atlantic lobster study, is it the expectation of anyone around this table that we'll not provide one recommendation to the government that will ask for the government to review specifically...? It's not. It's definitely not. We will be providing recommendations to the government to act.

Mr. Chair, I think I still have the floor. Thank you.

We'll be providing specific recommendations to the government. That's what we do as a committee. Nobody should feel alienated or threatened by that or feel as though your loyalty to place, to Parliament, or to party has been sidelined by that. That's what we do. I don't really understand why it is that in order to get a unanimous report here back to the House we have to surrender that principle.

If people don't want to vote for this, don't vote for it, and if people want to vote for it, vote for it, but let's have this as a committee. If for the necessity of a unanimous position we have to do things we don't agree with, not even on the margins.... But this is a fundamental principle here. I studied this and many of my colleagues studied this, and we recommend that the government reinstate the full funding. I don't think it's really any more complicated or simpler that that. It is what it is.

I'm going to stand by the motion that repeats and reiterates everything we heard in testimony before us as a committee. It's consistent with the testimony we heard from the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation. Since we heard directly from one of the senior officials from within the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency that this is a final decision, delaying it by 15 days for the department to review is simply doing what we know will happen anyway. I think Mr. Weston may have actually stated it most clearly: this is not going to be funded.

We need to make sure there is no ambiguity or confusion whatsoever--that the majority view of the representatives, the parliamentarians, and members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans of where we stand on this issue is made absolutely crystal clear. I think that's very appropriate.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is now asking the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation to fulfill things they're asking for that the Atlantic lobster round table asked for, and they're wondering when they're going to proceed with the Atlantic lobster development committee so the Atlantic lobster development initiative, an agency, can get up and running. The answer is that it can't, because it has no capacity to organize these kinds of things. So the motion itself calls on the government, and whether that is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, ACOA, Industry Canada, or Agriculture Canada's seafood and marine products directorate--there are a lot of different institutions that could potentially provide funding for this organization, but they're just not doing it. This motion pretty well says exactly what we need to do.

With that said, I hope we can move forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Stoffer.