Fisheries Committee on April 21st, 2010

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That's probably one for the quotation book.

Could you read the motion, as it would be amended, for the benefit of all committee members?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

This is the amended version of the amended motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, after completing the study on aquaculture on the west coast, study the snow crab industry in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, and that the committee report to the House on its findings and conclusions.

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

Would you interpret that to mean that you wouldn't actually have an order of reference to study the snow crab issue until the aquaculture study is completed? That's the way I would read it.

The motion is very specific about timing and about when the crab study can occur. It cannot occur until after the west coast aquaculture study is completed. So in terms of the ability of this committee to use financial resources to call witnesses or to take other measures, you won't have that order of reference if this amended motion passes. That would be my interpretation.

I'd love to hear from those of a higher power. Maybe our clerk could say that I'm not reading this correctly. What would be your interpretation? May I ask the chair or the clerk to provide us with an interpretation?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Sorry for the long meeting.

From my understanding, upon discussion with the clerk, it does limit our ability to deal with the snow crab industry beyond the study on the aquaculture industry on the west coast. It does not specifically mention other items in the work plan the committee might take into consideration, such as eco-certification. That is something we have on the work plan. So in essence, we could still call witnesses on those items. But as far as this amendment itself, it does limit our study of the snow crab industry, Mr. Byrne.

I hope that provides some clarification.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you acknowledging that I was correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

God bless you.

We'll go to Mr. Allen.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I guess this is a process comment, but this motion is wrong on so many levels. Here we are having the same conversation we had the other day. We've reverted right back. We were talking about aquaculture the other day. We were talking about how many witnesses we were going to have and how many meetings we were going to have. That was going to be part of a subcommittee discussion. I understood that was going to happen, which would make a recommendation that we wouldn't follow anyway probably, and here is this motion.

Mr. Blais made a great point when he said we're going to examine the snow crab industry in Atlantic Canada and Quebec with no scope on it, no idea how many meetings we're going to have on this thing, or how many witnesses.

Basically what I see is that with no scope, nothing defined on this, all the words are going to be reinserted by Mr. Byrne, choosing all his witnesses again. That's what's going to be on the witness list, and then we're going to be on this for some period of time.

I think we should deal with some of the other questions at hand, such as how much time should we be spending on aquaculture, and deal with this in a logical order.

Until you can put some scope around it, how could you ever support something foolish like that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Monsieur Blais.

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

I know there are many ways to solve a problem and find different solutions. Last time, we were trying to solve our scheduling problem and having the most enlightened discussion possible, saying that we would do this or that. However, we did not arrive at a consensus.

The only consensus we arrived at was to refer the problems to the subcommittee, to the vice-chair and the chair so that this could be discussed again and they would send us a work plan.

Currently, it seems to me that the work plan that is being created is going against the amendments. That does not solve the problem. If I understand the motion as amended clearly, it would seem that there is a study at risk of being set aside, that of eco-certification. That is what I understand.

We seem to be moving closer to an agreement, which is that we seem to be moving towards two priorities and we must not forget that there is a third on the way. It will happen one day. It is floating in a bubble somewhere above our heads and when it lands, we will have no choice but to deal with it. I'm thinking of the new bill that will be tabled. If it is not tabled before next year, we will then have more time and be able to work better. Currently, I understand that that will help us. It is a different way of doing things. We are moving forward through motions and amendments and in that way we are developing a work plan. However, what I understand in terms of the work plan is that eco-certification is being set aside. It is impossible to do everything at the same time. We also are not immune to all kinds of other situations that might arise. The crab situation has just been produced because of the 63%. God knows and the devil can only guess what is hanging over our heads, apart from the new Fisheries Act. A catastrophe could arise somewhere or some kind of decision could result in our urgently having to work on that issue.

There are two issues that concern the committee, that is aquaculture on the west coast and crab in the east. At least that means we are covering issues from coast to coast. So much the better, that is very Canadian. That will allow us to say that we are concerned about what is going on at home. However, as for the motion as amended, I will not be able to support it. It sets out a work plan and projects our working initially on aquaculture and moving next to the crab situation. From my perspective, if I had a better idea of where we were headed on aquaculture I might be a little more comfortable as far as the current situation is concerned. As far as aquaculture out west is concerned, I'm not too certain where we are headed. If I knew more, I could more easily support the amendment that was moved. However, I know that there are witnesses who will soon be invited to appear. I do not know how many, nor for how long. Aquaculture in the west is a very broad subject.

[Some voices]

Oh, oh!

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

First of all, everyone will have a turn to speak. If I say something that suits you, you don't say a word. If I say something that does not, you interrupt me. Is that how it works? I want to finish telling you what my thoughts are and then you will have an opportunity to express yours. You cannot interrupt me because you are not satisfied with what I am saying.

The problem is nevertheless the following. I am well aware that as far as the crab issue is concerned, I have the impression that we are heading towards a study that will take a certain amount of time. We will have to in any case determine how much time that will take. If not, as far as aquaculture is concerned, we will carry on meetings for a certain number of weeks and, at some point, we will realize that we will have to invite more witnesses. However, what I understand is that there are two major concerns: aquaculture in the west and crab in the east. In that regard, I believe that each one of the parties will have to present a work plan.

However, I cannot accept the amendment as it is currently presented that plans for a study on aquaculture in the west before studying the crab situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Kamp.

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

So that we're all clear here, it's pretty clear that Mr. Byrne is trying to hijack the agenda of this committee, and he's doing a pretty effective job of it, I have to say.

If this amendment fails, we go back to the main motion; we're never getting to aquaculture. Let's be clear about that. So Mr. Byrne should know that when he goes to the west coast the next time, he needs to tell all the people who write me hundreds and hundreds of letters about aquaculture on the west coast that he was unwilling to spend some time continuing a study we had already begun.

Mr. Blais says he doesn't know what the work plan might be for aquaculture. He's right about that, but we certainly have a better idea of what it might be as opposed to the work plan for snow crab. We have nothing limiting it in terms of time or interest or anything else that I can see here, apart from the comments that have been made. This amendment of Mr. Calkins is just stating a priority: that we continue with what we've started. We've had a number of meetings on it, and this seems to make sense to us on this side.

If that amendment were to pass, we're certainly not opposed—let me say this again—to finding a way to empower the chair, if there's an empty slot, to bring in witnesses on any topic, including crab. I think an amendment could be made to the main motion after amendment to specify that, if it seemed necessary. We'd be happy to do that.

But really, what we're saying on this side is pretty clear. We've started aquaculture, we've abandoned one study already, the work plan is out the window, and we have no idea what we're doing here. A case could be made for returning this whole thing to the steering committee and trying to figure out where we're going, because it looks to me as though we're in chaos at the moment.

But we have this motion on the floor, like it or not, and I think this amendment should be passed so that we give an order to the studies we're going to do, with the understanding—by motion, if necessary—that if there are empty times, when we don't have people to come in on aquaculture, we can bring some in on crab or any other topic. We on this side don't have any difficulty with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Donnelly.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a number of points.

I'm going to assume, and I guess I would like some clarification, that snow crab is now on the work plan.

I just want to confirm. If the amendment fails, does the motion fail? The motion, as far as I know.... That's why I wanted clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

We would vote on the amendment to the amended motion, and then we would vote on the main motion as amended.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Kamp's comments and others just now help to emphasize exactly why I want some clarification on the work plan before deciding on this amendment to the amended motion. I have expressed why I think we need to look at the emerging snow crab issue, based on a decision that was made before we set or talked about the work plan.

There was a question about the focus; for instance aquaculture, what it could be. I proposed a focus at the last committee that was something to consider. I appreciated Mr. Blais's comments at the last committee also, concerning how we might want to deal with aquaculture. I believe the comment was that we should dedicate a number of committee meetings, bring in some witnesses, hear what they have to say, then make a decision as to whether we want to go further. I think that's a very good suggestion.

It also leaves the work plan somewhat open-ended still, even doing that. So my final comment, and I understand the frustration at the table on this, is that I'm still nervous that the aquaculture issue is not on the work plan, and if it were to be added, we still have to deal with the other items that are on the work plan. I don't know how we're going to get all that accomplished in one year. That's why I asked for the clarification about how many meetings we could dedicate to all these work plan items. Until I get that clarification, it's hard to support something that I would normally support if we had that clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Donnelly.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I've mentioned aquaculture on the west coast many times at this committee, and it didn't get raging support, I would have to say, and I think most people at this committee would have to agree. Last week I spent a lot of time trying to suggest to the committee that we bring witnesses in this week—this day. There were witnesses who could have come. It wasn't accepted by the committee, and now here we are, all of a sudden.

Everybody, I would hope and feel, is trying to do their best for the fishery, but we have a major crisis on our hands in the snow crab fishery. And we have a major problem on the west coast, but it's fair to say that I didn't get a great hearing on Monday at this committee to bring in some witnesses. All of a sudden today it is a crisis.

I believe it is a crisis and I believe we should be looking at it. I just wonder why all of a sudden aquaculture is so much more important today than it was 48 hours ago. I fully agree that it's important. I think members would agree that I pushed the issue as hard as I could. Now this motion comes forward, dealing with a major crisis in Quebec and Atlantic Canada, which if passed without the amendment that's in play at the moment would not mean that we could not call witnesses from the west coast on the aquaculture industry. I fully believe that we should, at any opening we have, bring witnesses from the west coast on the aquaculture industry.

But if we totally ignore a major disaster, concerning which I have a lot of big questions to answer—as to why the quota was cut so much all of a sudden, what happened, what compensations are going to be in place, what happens to the workers.... This is an immediate issue that this committee needs to deal with, and I truly hope that we do; that we deal with the snow crab issue leaving room, at any time that we can, to deal with the aquaculture industry on the west coast. I've spoken in favour of continuing that study more than anybody else here—or as much, at least. But now, to jump on this and to say that we cannot look at a major crisis in Quebec and Atlantic Canada.... I think the committee would not be doing what it should be doing: looking at a major crisis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Bryne.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Fin, just as a clarification, the motion has been amended but not adopted, so we are not yet decided to study crab at all in eastern Canada. That is subject still to a vote. The only thing we've voted on so far is the amended version of the motion.

It's a good thing that these meetings are recorded and transcripts provided, because Fin brought this forward. This is an issue that Fin brought forward because, quite frankly, there wasn't a huge amount of support from the government on a study of B.C. issues at all. That's not hearsay or conjecture; that's all fully recorded in the transcript of this committee when we were discussing this business. In fact, there is no motion to study aquaculture in B.C. There is an order of reference that tells us to call in the director general from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. That's it. There is no order of reference to study B.C. aquaculture yet, because there was no consensus on the part of the government members to do so. We'd actually have to engage in another motion to study B.C. aquaculture issues.

It's just so we're all clear. You know, there's a bit of revisionist history going on here.

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

On your side too.

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

On our side too. Well, as long as you acknowledge that it's occurring on the Conservative side of the table, because you can't have “too” unless you acknowledge that it's occurring there. There's a lot of revisionist history, and quite frankly it's not coming from this side of the table.

There is no order of reference to study B.C. aquaculture. We have an amendment to a motion on the table that implies that there is, when there's not. Who's deceiving who? I'll go to the B.C. coast any day and say what we did to help out the B.C. stakeholders in this industry. Quite frankly, I would not want to be in someone else's shoes right now.

Since the rhetoric is being raised here, I'm happy to participate, because at least I can actually speak with fact. So let's get on this vote for this. I won't vote for this amended motion simply because it implies that there is an order of reference for this committee to study B.C. aquaculture when there's not. There is nothing of the sort that we've approved. It actually impedes our ability to work as a committee because we cannot call any other witnesses on the other issue that we deem important, which is the crab issue. From my colleague Mr. Donnelly's point of view, as someone from B.C., given the fact that there is not even an order of reference to study the issue of B.C. aquaculture, I certainly would understand why he would not want to support the amendment to this motion. He's quite right to be concerned about whether or not there's any sort of clarity to this whatsoever. So I think we should just get on with this.

I will certainly be supporting a motion to study B.C. aquaculture, because there isn't one yet. In fact, many on this side of the table had to fight to get to the position we're in right now. And the only position we're in right now is to actually call in a senior government official to actually explain it. That's it. That's all we've done. And we had to fight to get it to that point. So let's get on with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Monsieur Blais.

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

Despite everything, slowly we're moving ahead. That's my impression. Perhaps I'm too optimistic. Gerry raised some points that I agree with. I can't agree with everything he said but I do agree with some of his points.

It's true that we started off in aquaculture with a briefing. I think that Randy explained it very clearly last time when he spoke about the sudden arrival of lice, the famous bug. Then there was a controversy with one witness, then another and we got carried away. Last Monday, I think Randy explained very clearly why we got there.

As I was saying, there is a consensus on two items: a study on aquaculture in the west and the snow crab in the east. That's what I see. With respect to eco-certification, even if a study has been proposed and it's in writing, we have to forget it for now. We can't do all three at the same time. I don't think that would be possible.

We have to find a way of doing both these studies. A solution will be found eventually by the famous steering committee. It will once again suggest a work plan and I hope there will be a consensus. I am not sure of that, but that's life. What I'm seeing, and I'm going to try to understand and support this, is that we appear to be moving ahead in two different areas—at two opposite ends furthermore—with respect to Canadian and Quebec priorities. I share those priorities.

Furthermore, to complicate matters—not as much so in the case of the snow crab—because it's a little less complicated to study given that we are more familiar with the parameters—we were told by Commissioner Cohen's staff that we could move ahead in that direction. However, what complicates matters is that there is a much broader study, which is in fact a commission of investigation that is looking at the same problems we are. I think that's what complicates matters. That's also why we still don't know exactly what we're going to study. There's also salmon. Salmon and aquaculture are two completely different things. This is what is complicating matters.

I personally don't have any problems with this. I think that experts from the west are people from the west. And I imagine that those same people think that the experts on the east are people from the east. That's how it works, that's fine. It's sort of a mutual respect. We end up figuring things out.

I also think that crab is important. We will study aquaculture in whatever manner you want us to. I don't think this will be easy but those are the kinds of challenges we face. We'll have to find a way of undertaking two studies at the same time. That's what will happen, or just about. I don't want to trivialize or ignore what is happening in the west for the benefit of what is happening in the east, by saying that one is more important than the other because of some number. That will be our challenge. Undertaking two studies at the same time is almost physically impossible. But apparently, politics is the art of making things possible, or the art of making the impossible possible.

I hope that my comments will elevate the debate in order to reach a consensus. We have to. Otherwise we are going to get more and more stuck and eventually we'll feel threatened by what you're thinking. The opposite is also true. Perhaps you're right. We mustn't hide things from each other. Like it or not, everyone here has to protect their own interests.

The issue being what it is and the tradition in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans being what it is, we always end up reaching some form of consensus. There are currently two priorities. You will describe yours as I have just described mine, which is the snow crab. I'm more familiar with that. I might have some difficulty in expressing this now but I will listen to what you have to say about the priority of aquaculture. I will go ahead with you. We will try to figure out an agenda or a schedule that will allow us to do this. I don't know how much time is provided for this. That's the worst part of it. That's what I see for now.

It's difficult for me to vote for or against Mr. Calkins' amendment. It will be difficult for me to support it as worded but that doesn't necessarily mean that I am completely disregarding concerns related to aquaculture. I would like to find another amendment that will allow us to do both. I don't want one issue to be dealt with to the detriment of the other. I realize that both are important.