Fisheries Committee on Oct. 8th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Kamp.

It has been moved to amend the motion by replacing the final clause, “and that Canada notify” with the following:until the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has had an additional 21 sitting days to study the matter further and to report the results of that study to the House.

Is there discussion on the amendment?

Mr. Byrne.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate your reading into the record the position of the Liberal Party of Canada, which is that this revised NAFO convention not be ratified. That is our position.

We take some comfort at this point in time, given the fact that the government—at least the Conservative members of this committee—is not prepared to pronounce itself on this particular convention. Clearly, it has concerns; it wants more time to study it. That means it's not necessarily sold on the benefits of the convention, so we certainly applaud that.

The Liberal Party of Canada has determined that this convention is not in the best interest of Canada. We've heard expert witness testimony during March, May, and October 2009. Now we've heard from the minister herself, which quite frankly increased my concern; it did not decrease it at all.

The Liberal Party of Canada will not be supporting this particular amendment to the motion for many reasons, but mostly because we're very clear that this is not in the best interest of Canada. We appreciate the fact that the government—at least the Conservative members here—is quite uncertain. It wants more time to study it.

But I will point this out to committee members. We made a commitment to get on to the business of other issues facing this committee. Issues were piling up. I think we've heard enough testimony for us to at least pronounce ourselves on this. I know where our party stands. I would have thought or hoped that the New Democratic Party would pronounce itself on this. If what some members are saying is that they need more time to study, that they haven't yet made up their minds on this, I guess they'll just have to make that case known not only to the committee but to the public as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Byrne.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Just to give a brief outline of this discussion, as you know, when we were last here, the first thing out of my mouth was this: is there any possible way, because of all the other issues, that we can get the government to assure us that it can delay ratification?

My understanding was that, as of October 19, the 21-day deadline given to us by the government would have been over and the government would have had its own right on October 20 to ratify this agreement. We had asked, was there any possible way we could get that extended to discuss not only this but the other issues as well?

At the time, Mr. Kamp, the parliamentary secretary, was not sure if indeed that could happen, so Mr. Byrne moved a motion—and rightfully so—which we supported, because of the urgency of the situation. We then find out today that the government has acknowledged the fact that there can be more time prior to their discussing the ratification of this treaty, which then gives us the opportunity to bring in two more sets of witnesses.

One set would be the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and one question I would like to ask them about is their current view of the situation.

Also, we consistently hear about scientific and eco-based management. It would be nice to bring in the scientists who do these NAFO TACs and allocations in order to see if indeed, in their view, these new amendments are either good or bad.

Personally, I can tell Mr. Byrne and the Liberal Party that I do not support the amendments to this particular treaty, and I would vote against them and support any motion that would have the government not ratify. But in fairness to everybody and in fairness to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, I think it's only fair that we allow a couple more groups of witnesses to come in. We'd then make our report. We'd then table a motion of concurrence or non-concurrence in the House, we'd have a vote, and we'd proceed from there.

But bear in mind that we know full well—because we've done this before, and I've lost arguments before—that even when concurrence ruled in favour of it, previous governments and the current one have said, “Well, it's a motion anyway; it's nice to hear from the House, but we don't have to abide by it.”

I can assure Mr. Byrne and the House that I and the NDP will not be supporting the NAFO amendments as presented to us by the minister and officials. However, to repeat, I think it's only proper that we get an opportunity to speak to Newfoundland and Labrador and to scientists. We're only talking about maybe a couple of days. We don't even need the 21 days to do this. That way we're not, as Mr. Kamp said, rushed into this, even though our views are probably already well known, that this side--I can't speak to the Bloc--would exercise reservation over the treaty, and I believe the Conservatives would probably support the treaty as it's done.

It's only fair that we have a couple more days of what the Senate calls “sober second thought” in this regard, but I believe it would be fair to balance out any kind of discussion in this review.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Weston.

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

Mr. Chair, there's a saying that no good deed goes unpunished. It seems to me that in the spirit of parliamentary democracy, the government has provided 21 more days for discussion. Mr. Byrne said, I think about three times in his two minutes, that it shows there's great uncertainty on the side of the government and restlessness, or whatever words he used. In fact, it's an opportunity to respond to the kinds of issues raised by you, Mr. Byrne and Mr. Stoffer, to hear from other people. It's an exercise in parliamentary democracy, and it's counterproductive to turn around and chastise the government by suggesting there's some uncertainty because we want to give you an opportunity to have your views, and those of other witnesses, heard.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Weston.

Monsieur Blais.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have participated in a good-faith exercise in these last few hours. This has been about good faith and nothing but good faith. I have always been very clear on our position on this issue. The problem was the October 19 date. That forced us to analyze the situation very quickly and to come to a conclusion like the one reflected in the motion on the table.

In my opinion, since we had no guarantee—either from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or from the Department of Foreign Affairs—that the decision could be suspended, we had to make a decision today. In all good faith, given that we now have more time to study the issue, it is important to do so. That says it all.

Furthermore, I agree entirely with Mr. Stoffer. We maintain our position on the amendments before us. The question is not whether we are studying the possibility of changing our approach today; it has nothing to do with that. To those who think that that is what is going on, I say that they are clearly not listening. I said it several times and I will say it again: we are not satisfied with the amendments to NAFO that are currently before us; that is our opinion.

However, when we do not agree on a position, it is quite appropriate to allow people the time to have their say; that is showing good faith.

Yesterday, it was an urgent matter because of the October 19 date; now, it is no longer urgent. So I will let others have their say. I am anxious to hear from Mr. Williams, if he agrees to come here. I look forward to hearing what the ministry in Newfoundland and Labrador has to say. I was also convinced by the arguments presented by Mr. Applebaum and the others. But I am far from convinced by what the department has presented to us concerning the amendments.

The exercise we are currently undertaking is intended in all good faith to ensure that our final position on the matter will not be taken with a gun to our heads, and particularly not with a deadline like October 19. This will allow us to go into more detail in our arguments. Our position remains the same, that is that the NAFO amendments currently on the table are unsatisfactory. I told the minister so yesterday, during a meeting on another issue: the grey seal. I told her that our position remains the same, in fact.

If some people think that we have suddenly changed our position, there is nothing we can do. They are free to think what they will; at the end of the day, I cannot make them do anything. However, I know my position and I know the Bloc Québécois' position. We consider the results of the NAFO negotiations to be unsatisfactory.

But it is quite right to give people the opportunity to come here and express their opinions, given that we no longer have this sword of Damocles, the October 19 date, over their heads. This is how we cooperate. It has nothing to do with the views of others that some may think we have taken over. It is unfortunate that it happens like that, but, for myself, I have always believed that the more time we have to analyze an issue, the better our position will be. If our position does not change, it will be better documented. My feeling is that it will be more complete than it was, given the witnesses that we will be hearing from.

I hope that we will be hearing from other witnesses who will give us various perspectives. Hearing other opinions is not a problem for me, given that we no longer have the sword of Damocles hanging over our heads. I am cooperating.

I believe I have cooperated in good faith in order to allow people to have their say so that we can study this issue once again. However, let us not fool ourselves. We are not trying to get out of anything. We have just pushed back the deadline.

In my opinion, the situation is improving to some extent. I feel that our group is better informed than ever and will be even more so after we hear the next witnesses. This is even better for democracy. I am perfectly comfortable with the position we have taken and I hope that everyone will support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Monsieur Blais.

We'll go to Mr. Kamp.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we're probably getting close to being ready for the question on this, but perhaps I can make a couple of final comments.

First, I appreciate the comments made by my colleagues, but I would encourage us all, as parliamentarians, as members of this committee, to try as much as possible to retain some objectivity as we continue studying this. I think it behooves us to do that on both sides of this issue.

In addition to the witnesses who have been mentioned, personally I would be very interested in hearing from another NAFO country, maybe even one of the coastal states that will be affected by this amendment in a similar way, or maybe Norway, which has already ratified this.

I think the additional time, in addition to allowing us to hear witnesses as we develop the report, would allow us some time to actually talk to one another, as well, rather than to just vote on a motion. We could get a sense of and flesh out our own positions on this at the end of our study. We would be able to write a report that is balanced and understand one another better. This time will allow us at least some time--not a lot of time, but some time--to actually produce a report that is the subject of some discussion among ourselves.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Go ahead, Mr. Byrne.

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

Mr. Chair, there you have it. I guess we'll call the vote soon.

Our position is relatively clear, and I respect the fact that others may disagree with me. I will put one air of caution on the table, which is that there are still deadlines. Other countries can still ratify this, and once you get to a threshold of a three-quarters majority, then of course it's a done deal. The convention is then ratified. So we'll just take a shot, and we'll hope for the best and hope that a three-quarters majority within NAFO does not ratify it within the time period during which we will still be debating it here in Canada.

Perhaps we'll call the question.

We won't be supporting this NAFO revised convention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Is there any more discussion on the amendment?

Go ahead, Mr. Stoffer.

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

I understand, if I'm not mistaken, that the United States is part of NAFO. It would be very interesting to see what a country like that says. Because they're so protectionist of their ground and their waters, it would be interesting to see what they have to say. So if we're inviting another country, if indeed this passes, it would be interesting, Mr. Kamp, if we could get someone from the United States, who understands this issue, to come before us, if indeed that's possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? All right, I will call the question.

It has been moved by Mr. Kamp to amend the motion put forward by Mr. Byrne by replacing “and that Canada notify NAFO of its objection to the amendment as per Article XXI of the Convention” with “until the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has had an additional 21 sitting days to study the matter further and to report the results of that study to the House”.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Is there any discussion on the amended motion?

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

Can you read it out again?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I'll read the motion as amended.

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans report the following to the House. Given the evidence heard by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, at hearings in March, May and October 2009, and the serious concerns recently expressed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the committee recommends that the Government of Canada not ratify the amendment to the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, adopted by the general council of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization in 2007, until the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has had an additional 21 sitting days to study the matter further and to report the results of that study to the House.

That is the amended motion. Is there discussion on the amended motion?

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

The last sentence, “notify NAFO of its...”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

No, that's removed.

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

All right, okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Is there any discussion on the amended motion? Are we ready for the question?

Sorry, Mr. Byrne.

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

My original motion has indeed been amended. That's it. There's not much I can do about that. I would have liked to have a negative vote nullifying the NAFO convention right here and now so we can send a clear message to the international community that we are not accepting a loss of Canadian sovereignty inside the 200-mile limit. That has not occurred.

Now we, as Liberal members, have to deal with this as it currently exists. We will be voting in favour of this, and since there are 21 additional sitting days, the government, from the fisheries minister on down, has guaranteed us it will not ratify this treaty until a bare minimum of at least 42 sitting days of the House have lapsed, hopefully even longer—because, of course, as the minister pointed out, it's a minimum of 21 days; she finally provided a clarification.

Hopefully the New Democratic Party, or maybe even the Bloc, will use a supply day, which is available to them. Since we now have time, there's an opportunity for the New Democratic Party to use a supply day, an opposition day, in the House of Commons to actually bring this to the floor of the House of Commons. I would encourage my colleague Mr. Stoffer to do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Byrne.

Is there any further discussion on the amended motion?

Mr. Stoffer.

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

That very kind gesture does call for a minor response.