Fisheries Committee on May 7th, 2009

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

In all fairness to Mr. Weston, I don't think that was his intent. Mr. Allen brought up a good point, that full funding could mean one year, five years, or anything. Would the committee agree to look at throwing out the two amendments we already have and putting in a new one that says the government would restore full funding for one year to the CCFI, from May 1, 2009, to May 1, 2010? That way you wouldn't get into the five- or ten-year program. It would give it one more year.

We all know they weren't advised properly or formally that they were no longer going to be a player. They heard it through the back door.

We also know that Minister Shea's department--although I haven't heard her say anything on it yet--was going to give x number of dollars, and indicated support for it. I would ask my parliamentary secretary colleague whether the minister has spoken publicly on this decision regarding the government funding. Was she opposed to it or in favour of it? Did she have any say in the matter?

I don't know, but if we change it, Mr. Byrne, and you looked at it....

I'm looking for a compromise here to change the term and restore full funding for one year. That would give it an entire year to do what Mr. Allen said before about industry and maybe other government departments picking up more--that kind of thing. So I'm just asking if there's a consensus to change the words to “full funding for one year”? I'm throwing that out for debate to see if we can get a consensus.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I have a couple of points on Mr. Stoffer's comments.

Technically, you can't move that, because we already have a subamendment on the floor, and technically we should only be debating the subamendment, which is to add the wording “within 15 days”.

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

That's understandable, but if the subamendment is withdrawn, and the other amendment is withdrawn, which can be done, and then we put the words “for one year” in, would that be acceptable to the committee? I just throw that out for debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

We'll go to Mr. Allen on the subamendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's very much in line with what Peter said. I was going to say, through you to Mr. Byrne, that because it was funded under ICF, that's not to me full funding. That's not A-base funding. It's not. That's program funding, which could be ended at any time. As you know, those programs have sunsetted.

So my question to Gerry, through you, Mr. Chair, is to define what you mean by full funding. What does that mean? There's been one definition, and Mr. Andrews gave us another definition. You were sort of on the one-year track. What does that mean? Because, to your point, we came here to make concrete recommendations to government. Full funding is not concrete to me. From a business perspective, it's not concrete. What does that mean? I'd like you to define that for me, because that question still has not been answered.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

We'll have Mr. Andrews.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

To the subamendment and the 15 days and the crisis.... No, I'm not going to use that word, because we're not there yet, but we're teetering on a crisis in the fishing industry.

Mr. Allen, to your point a little earlier about getting industry to foot the full bill for this, I think we have to be realistic, looking at the fishing industry right now. Even though the industry partners in CCFI have come a long way in the last number of years in funding this organization and in being in partnership with this organization, with the lobster industry the way it is now, finding industries to come on board at this particular moment in time and expecting them to carry more weight with the CCFI I don't think is very practical.

You look at the crab industry in Newfoundland right now. We have three processors that are saying that they're not buying crab anymore. We are teetering on some major, major problems within the fishery industry in general. And for an institute that has worked with industry, timing is very important. We should not turn our backs on that. When we want to look at timing, a year's full funding, two years, three years, well, maybe we could have that debate.

The second part of my point is, being new to politics, I don't think it's very responsible for any of us to be misleading and to build false hope. I think by changing this to talk about reconsidering, we're building false hope out there. For some reason, if we reconsider, your government will actually do something to change it. That's what I'm seeing here today. You seem intent on putting in the word “reconsider”. Unless you guys know something we don't, come clean. Come clean with us right now. To say that you don't know anything.... You've spoken to your colleagues on this. Well, it seems to me that we may be trying to mislead or to bring false hope.

Well, listen then, if you don't know any more than we know, why are we reconsidering? We know that the department has said no, so we know that reconsidering isn't going to do anything. Let's move forward and put this motion forward and let whichever department of government step up to the plate and participate with CCFI.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Byrne.

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

Speaking to the subamendment, if someone were to put into the subamendment that it should be for only one year of funding, I'd say that one year was insufficient, because we have an industry in absolute crisis. So that subamendment would not be appropriate, if it were put forward. It wouldn't be appropriate because we have an industry in crisis right now, and we have an organization that's being called upon by the industry to show leadership. One year of funding would actually result in the organization spending most of that year trying to create the circumstances for funding after that year.

We need to have that organization's energy and focus devoted strictly and solely to the crisis in the lobster industry, and the fishing industry generally. We have a shutdown of crab throughout Newfoundland now. We have a billion-dollar industry in Newfoundland that has shut down.

If anyone doesn't think we have a billion-dollar lobster industry shut down, let me read this to you from seafood.com, the most authoritative source on the seafood industry in the world. This is from Seafood.com News, by Jack MacAndrew, dated May 6, 2009:

Canadian lobster season in chaos as buyers cannot handle landings For as long as any fishermen can remember, they set as many traps as they were allowed; caught as many lobsters as they could; dumped his catch on the wharf for as much as they could get for them; and then went on about their business. The rest of the processing, marketing and other aspects of the lobster industry was somebody else's business. That routine came to a sudden end yesterday, just five landing days into the spring lobster season. Some buyers on the wharves of PEI and other ports in New Brunswick and the Magdalen Islands weren't buying at all. Others told their fishermen that processors had set a 500 pound daily limit per boat on their purchases. Processors said they had to do something to stop the glut of lobsters at their doors, the result of daily bumper catches of 2000 and better pounds by fishermen in the first days of the season. And there's more bad news for fishermen on the way, what some are calling their own ' perfect storm. ' The shore price for their catch hasn't yet been set, but it is due tomorrow ( Thursday ), with expectations of $CDN 2.75 ( $US $2.33) a pound for the smaller size canners, which make up the bulk ( about 75 per cent) of the catch; and $CDN3.50 ( $US 2.97) for markets. Fishermen say that 500 pounds of lobster at those prices is ruinous, and doesn't come close to covering expenses, especially when so much of the catch is in the smaller size canners, useful only for processing. It doesn't take 300 traps, the number set by Department of Fisheries regulation in the areas fishing the spring season, to land 500 pounds.

I could go on, but I think I've made the point here.

This is an industry in absolute crisis. The decision can't be made to allow the government to just review it. The decision can't be made to allow the government 15, 30, or 45 days to review it, and then say no. The decision has to be made by this committee—if we are advocates for fishermen and the fishing industry—to make a specific recommendation to the government that this must occur now, and that full funding should be brought in.

Mr. Allen, as to your point on what is full funding, it's the funding that was applied for by the CCFI.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

The question on the subamendment is whether to add “within 15 days” to the amendment.

(Subamendment negatived)

I'll read the amended motion:

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 regarding 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 industry's long-term competitiveness and sustainability.

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

Point of order. It's “recognizing”, not “regarding”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Did I say “regarding”? I apologize. Yes, you're correct. I apologize. It must have been when I was bringing my glasses to my face. I apologize.

(Amendment negatived)

Now, on to the motion by Gerry Byrne:

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.

(Motion agreed to)

All right.

Mr. Byrne, you have a second motion.

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

I respectfully withdraw the motion, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Byrne.

Now we'll go in camera for consideration of the draft report.

[Proceedings continue in camera]