Evidence of meeting #10 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
I call this meeting to order. We are here today to consider committee business.
Mr. Byrne, I believe you want to put forward a motion.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Yes.
Mr. Clerk, do you have copies of that motion, by any chance?
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
They've been distributed. Copies have been distributed to all members.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
3:30 p.m.
An hon. member
It's right here in front of you.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Mr. Chair, I think adequate notice was given for the following motion:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108 (2), the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans study the shellfish industry in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, including but not limited to current and past management plans for the snow crab fishery in all areas and related licensing decisions, sharing arrangements among the snow crab fishery fleets, and the assistance program for lobster fishermen, and call to appear the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with the appropriate departmental officials, Mr. Tim Rhyno, a crab licence holder, and representatives of corporate, traditional and aboriginal fleets and the processing sector, particularly from South-East Nova Scotia, the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, and Newfoundland and Labrador; that the committee report to the House on its findings and conclusions.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
It is so moved by Mr. Byrne. I won't read through the motion again.
Is there any discussion on the motion?
Mr. Calkins.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have one question in regard to the wording in the motion. Whether I agree or disagree with the motion per se is a matter of other debate, but I would like to ask why we would identify one single individual. It's a little bit odd to do those kinds of things in motions.
“Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with the appropriate departmental officials” would appear to be wording that would be standard in a motion. And “representatives of corporate, traditional and aboriginal fleets and the processing sector” and so on would appear to be wording that could be lived with. If I could get some clarification as to why a particular individual, Mr. Tim Rhyno, would be included in the wording of a motion, I think it would help me decide how I would like to handle this motion.
3:30 p.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
When Gerry spoke to me the first time, I mentioned certain problems that I had with it, particularly the fact that we were addressing one particular case, that of Mr. Rhyno. At that time, Gerry mentioned that he could include management of the crab fishery in all areas, including area 12. That area concerns me in particular because it is affected by the 63% reduction. That has just happened. Furthermore, Quebec fishermen are going out to sea tonight. There is quite an impact related to that.
I have a great deal of difficulty supporting this kind of motion, for several reasons. First, I am under the impression that we are trying to explain or take into consideration the granting of a permit, in this case to Mr. Rhyno. The questions we are asking ourselves about this are probably justified and legitimate. I have few doubts about that. My problem is really on another level.
The last time we met, we were discussing future business and we were wondering what we would do about the aquaculture study and that on eco-certification. We thought that we would practically have to choose between the two because the aquaculture study is increasing in scope. At some point, we will have to choose. Given what is happening with aquaculture, I would choose that rather than eco-certification. In fact, I think that would affect everyone.
I was ready. At the beginning of the week, I told you how, in my opinion, we could undertake the aquaculture study. But at this point, I have the impression that we are facing a study of some magnitude. That is how I see it. I am also asking myself a lot of questions about management of the snow crab issue. I also have questions about the shrimp and even on the situation of the cod in the southern gulf region as opposed to the north. I have many questions about Fisheries and Oceans management practices in general.
Given what is happening and considering the priorities we established for ourselves as well as the issue I had agreed to collaborate on, I think that at some point in time we will have to review the way licensing works. Will it be within the context of our study on the new Fisheries Act, which is coming soon? That could be a timely opportunity to do so. It might be an idea to study Mr. Rhyno's case at that time. However, I have a lot of hesitations when I consider that happening within the framework of such a vast study. I'm telling you this in all honesty. This isn't a red herring—quite the contrary. The concerns regarding licensing that Gerry raised during a question to the minister are surely legitimate.
I had the impression that we could consider this from another angle. In that case, I would be ready to cooperate. As far as undertaking a major study, I think we will have to do it, but I am wondering if it must be done at this point in time in this way or in another way. I have many reservations.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank Mr. Blais for his comments. I think he's summarized the issue quite well.
I think we based our lack of support for this motion on process. We did some work, we put together a work plan that involved some things at the steering committee, and then the committee decided what was of importance to us.
This was raised at the last meeting, I think by Mr. Donnelly, and he was quite right. At the time we did mention the possibility that west coast issues, particularly aquaculture, and perhaps its relationship to wild salmon populations, could come before us after we heard more information, and that we could decide after we heard from some other witnesses, and that might be an area that we felt compelled to look at.
So we have eco-certification that's still sort of hanging out there in limbo. We've now started down the aquaculture path. We heard some things that were quite interesting, to me at least, and I would like to find out more about what's going on there, who's right, and what the truth is on some of these issues. Now we're throwing in this crab study without any limits on it. All decisions that were made were certainly within the legal, lawful powers of the minister and so on. We're going to go back and look at allocation and TAC issues, if we go there.
There's all of that, and also the Fisheries Act is coming to us sooner, I think, rather than later. As Mr. Blais said, I think this could be an interesting case study when we get to the act and look at the sections of the bill that describe a new allocation, a new licensing regime, from the old one, and maybe look at issues like this and see how they would have been dealt with differently in the new act.
So I'm not opposed to that, as we hear witnesses and travel, probably, looking at the Fisheries Act. But to interrupt our two studies.... You know, we're schizophrenic already, and we probably need to limit it to two, I would say. I think aquaculture is probably something we need to do a little more work on before we can leave it aside.
Based on those things, we're not prepared to support this motion.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
A point of order, Mr. Chair.
If we're schizophrenic, how many votes do we get?
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm sure that all colleagues from all parts of eastern Canada and indeed all Canadians from all coasts would be concerned and impacted by the fact that in the province of New Brunswick the fishing industry has just lost probably $80 million. Literally thousands of fishermen and fish plant workers have lost their jobs. In the province of Quebec, upwards of $40 million to $50 million from the regional economy of the Gaspé has now been eliminated. There is no federal government assistance package in place, and there does not appear to be any coming. Decisions were made that suggest the government was somewhat negligent in its order of its management plans. Those did not take into consideration conservation needs in the past at times when scientific advice was presented to them to suggest that conservation measures would be needed to prevent the 63% loss of quota that has now been experienced in one year.
I'm sure all of us take the concerns of those who face that impact, particularly in the Gaspé and in New Brunswick, and will want to act on them in some way, shape, or form. I certainly would not want to be the one to go back to either the Gaspé or New Brunswick and explain to them that this committee had an opportunity to study this issue and to provide an outlet for fishermen, for processors, for plant workers, for provincial governments, and for other stakeholders to be involved in this inquiry, but we chose not to. This is an economic issue of huge concern, with no immediate relief in sight.
From a conservation point of view, I for one would certainly want to hear from DFO scientists to understand exactly what advice they did indeed provide the minister in the last several years regarding conservation requirements, to be able to maintain quota or at least stabilize quota and to allow for, if required, a responsible and organized quota reduction over a period of years, as opposed to imposing a 63% cut in one year.
I'd also like to hear from those who are impacted and who feel that certain licensing decisions were taken that impacted negatively upon them. As you know, I do indeed still have a motion before this committee specifically to study area 23 and area 24 crab. The events of area 12 in particular, as well as, in fairness, the marketing issues in Newfoundland and Labrador seem to have superseded a study on just area 23 and area 24. When I tabled that earlier motion, the events in Newfoundland and Labrador were still developing or rolling out. There was no decision at that point in time on area 12 in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Circumstances certainly have overtaken.
We now have a major crisis in the crab industry in particular, for which very little or no relief is being offered, and there is absolutely no outlet for anyone to be able to adequately discuss their concerns. I thought this committee would have been an excellent venue for them to identify the problems and propose their solutions. To allow this to occur, I will indeed suggest an amendment, since it does not appear that there are enough votes, that there is enough support around the table to be able to get that proper airing for those impacted individuals.
Again I just want to stress how serious this matter is, how significant it is, a failure of this committee and its members to stand up and allow the crab fishermen who are impacted by this, the processors who are impacted by this, the plant workers who are impacted by this, the communities that are impacted by this, and the regions that are impacted by this.... Not to allow that to occur, in my opinion, is irresponsible.
This is a new circumstance that was not available to us at the start of the parliamentary session at the beginning of March. It is now before us. To deny that it exists and simply say we have other business to attend to because we decided on it earlier shows that we don't really recognize the seasonal nature of this fishery. When new information is presented to us that was not available to us before, we don't have the option of waiting six or seven months to be able to study it. The realities of the situation are occurring right now, as we speak.
So I will indeed propose a friendly amendment to my own motion to try to garner enough support to be able to help these people in these regions in a time of absolute crisis. To get enough support, I will--
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Mr. Byrne, may I interrupt? The process does not allow you to make an amendment to your own motion.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
What I'm going to suggest, though, Mr. Chair, is that I will propose an amendment that someone else on the committee could indeed sponsor.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
I would ask that you ask someone else to propose that amendment. Rather than you proposing an amendment for someone else, you should have them propose that amendment.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
No, it's perfectly in order for me to discuss what I would recommend as an amendment. I'm not moving the amendment. It's perfectly within order, and I think you can consult with your clerk, Mr. Chair, to determine that.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
What I would recommend is if the motion were amended to read as follows:
That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans study the snow crab industry
—deleting “shellfish”—
in Atlantic Canada and Quebec,
—deleting all words thereafter until the word “Labrador” and the semi-colon, and continuing—
that the committee report to the House on its findings and conclusions.
I'll just repeat that in complete form:
That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans study the snow crab industry in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, and that the committee report to the House on its findings and conclusions.
To avoid any confusion or uncertainty in regard to the other materials in my original motion, to prevent any committee member from being concerned about that, I would suggest that we delete that wording and allow the committee to study exactly as I propose.
We've already heard from some Conservative members that they didn't have a problem with that as long as we didn't include the name of a specific individual. So with that said, at this point in time, we can now have a study on the snow crab industry. We can support and come to the assistance of those in the Gaspé and the Acadian Peninsula. We can come to the assistance of those in Newfoundland and Labrador, in P.E.I., and in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, and on the eastern side of Nova Scotia, those who are impacted in area 23. We can have a study on crab, we can do our work as a committee, or we can choose not to.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
I heard you clearly, but I heard some things that did not make me happy. I would tell you quite honestly that I presume that everyone is in good faith and I would never assume that anyone around this table would completely forget why they are here and not properly defend their constituents. If I ever do so in any way, I hope you will call me to order.
Having said that, the original motion, or possibly the amended version, would result in our studying the industry sector but forgetting the fact that the consequences are many and they go beyond the issue of licensing and crab management as such. There are repercussions. There are other forums where this work could be done, but the departments will have to work together to come to the assistance of the people who are experiencing these impacts. Many people are in a difficult situation, on top of the fishermen who are so seriously affected. I am thinking of those who are fishermen's helpers and those who work in the plants. They are really between a rock and a hard place because they are losing their jobs and hours of work. We know all that.
I could not understand how anyone would suggest that we are not defending our constituents well in order to influence us to vote for some motion or other. I cannot accept that. If ever I say such a thing, I hope you will repeat back to me what I have just told you. In fact, not only do I presume, I can see that everyone around this table is doing their best to do their job. We may have different perspectives on certain ways of proceeding. That is fine, it is part of the game. However, I would never dare personally attack anyone by saying that they are poorly defending or not defending their fellow citizens.
The problem is not that we wish to dispose of this issue or anything like that. I am also concerned by this aspect, but there are choices that must be made because there are studies. I am well aware of the fact that we have a Sword of Damocles hanging over our heads, which is the Fisheries Act. I am anxious for it to be referred to us so that we can study it. Then we will be able to touch on everything. Until then, there will be crises such as the one caused by the 63% reduction in the crab quota for area 12. We knew there would be reductions in the range of 40% to 50%, but not to 63%. We are seeing the impacts of that today.
That is why I would ask those who will continue to speak to this issue to be very careful and to not challenge the good will and efforts of people to defend their constituents. I cannot accept that.