Debates of May 28th, 2009

Fisheries and Oceans--Main Estimates, 2009-10

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Regarding the seal hunt, I do not need to go into too much explanation, but recently, of course, what has happened is that there is a ban on the importation and the sale on the market of seal products.

Can the minister confirm to the House at this moment, beyond the Inuit exemption, is there an exemption for products transiting through Europe?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Madam Chair, it is my understanding that the text is silent on that, so we have not confirmed that.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Chair, I spoke to a representative of the European Commission and he assured me that it is going to happen. Perhaps we can look into that further to clarify that, because that is a big exemption that we can take advantage of.

Also at this point I would like to talk about NAFO and NAFO reform. The government's acceptance of proposed NAFO reforms negotiated in 2007 seemingly hit a roadblock.

We had many experts who testified on Parliament Hill and other places about how it was going to be detrimental for management, especially when we are talking about custodial management.

The government tried to claim that it had achieved custodial management. My opinion differs from the government's.

One of the unfulfilled campaign promises beyond custodial management was another one that said the government would bring this agreement into the House for debate and vote.

When is that coming, and why has it not been here yet? It has been two years now.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Madam Chair, yes, this agreement will come to the House for debate. As to when, I do not have a date for the member.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Chair, it has been three years since the courts ruled in the Larocque decision that DFO could no longer fund its scientific activities by selling fish. The decision left DFO with a funding shortfall.

The science branch of fisheries management right now is understaffed and we are eagerly crying for more science studies. What is the government's plan to rectify this shortfall in funding because of the Larocque decision?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Madam Chair, at DFO we take science very seriously. It is the basis of our resource management.

In 2007, the federal budget allocated $58 million over five years to DFO to address science gaps created by the court decision, the Larocque ruling.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Chair, I have a question that comes to me from the Fisheries Community Alliance of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would like to read verbatim what they asked me to ask the minister. They said:

While all groups (governments, processors and the unions) keep pushing for rationalisation of the fishery, excessive debt load is making fishing licences and quotas highly vulnerable (in the longer term) to excessive licence, quota and wealth concentration. Rationalisation means that instead of our small boat fishers chasing the fish, we now have money (through debt accumulation) chasing the fish instead. How is rationalisation good for rural Newfoundland and Labrador--and good for the future of the small boat fishery?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Madam Chair, what rationalization does is help to bring economic stability to an enterprise by either amassing more quota or having access to more fish.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I have a quick question, Madam Chair, before I get into the second part.

Concerning the bycatch quota set in the NAFO regulatory zone, did it increase from 5% to 13%?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Madam Chair, we recognize that the bycatch quota has been overrun in the NAFO regulatory area. That will be addressed when we attend meetings this fall.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Chair, I am pleased to be able to participate in this important estimates debate on our fishing industry.

To put it simply, the government is out of touch. Lobster fishers in my riding from New Waterford to Pleasant Bay have been telling DFO and this minister that action needs to happen.

For months, the fishers of North of Smokey have been asking this minister for a meeting. So my first question to the minister is simply this: When will she meet with the fishers from North of Smokey?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Madam Chair, as the hon. member would probably know, I have plenty of requests for meetings. I try to accommodate all that I can.

Actually I think this may be the group that I may be able to get to very soon, because I plan to be in Cape Breton for a function.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Well, Madam Chair, I would appreciate a quick response.

When the lobster fishers of area 26B on the western side of Cape Breton requested their opening day to be the same as the rest of the region, the minister delayed the opening day by two days, which caused them a great loss of revenue.

Again my question to the minister is quite simple: Why did the minister suggest in her letter of response to their opening date that it is okay for some lobster fishers to have a delayed opening because they will not lose money, because they can get it from their crab licences, which they can fall back on? I will be tabling this letter tomorrow.

Why did the minister respond in that way?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Madam Chair, I assume that the response went to the organization, because when this issue was first raised with me by the hon. member, my department did talk to several of the fishers in the area who are in charge of the fisheries organizations. They reviewed what had happened in the meetings on opening dates and found that the majority of the fishers wanted the opening dates that they had asked for, and that is what was set.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Chair, it is very disappointing that she would allude to the possibility that the fishing dates being changed would not have a big impact because they could make money from the crab industry. We do not know how that is going to turn out.

The lobster industry is $1 billion industry, as was said here tonight, and it is now in a perfect storm, a perfect financial storm, really, and it will not recover unless the government makes substantial assistance available. Up until now, this minister has committed only $10 million, and that is just for marketing.

This is peanuts, and it is an insult when we look at all the bailouts for the rest of the industries that are in dire straits right now.

I have another straightforward question: What substantial assistance is going to be proposed that will give immediate assistance to the fishers of, not only Cape Breton, but the rest of Atlantic Canada?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Madam Chair, I have said several times tonight that we are in this crisis because of a downturn in the markets. Therefore, it makes sense to try to help the markets recover. That is why $10 million was put into lobster marketing, and we will support the lobster marketing council.

I am sure the hon. member knows that the fishing industry was a fractured industry and it did not come together as one eastern Canadian industry to promote itself. That is why we are supporting the lobster council, because we have to change the demand. We have the supply, but we have to increase the demand. That is how we are going to get back into a viable situation.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Chair, that is not really going to help until maybe next year. What we need is immediate assistance.

The Liberals have three examples of how the government can help. The first is to improve the employment insurance, the second is to ease credit to support inventory costs, and the third is to implement government support for capacity reduction. Those are three simple ways that this minister and the Conservative government can help these fishers get through this year.

So my question to the minister is, why do you not step up and use those three examples that we recommend to your government?

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would like to ask all members to address themselves to the Chair.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Madam Chair, I would just like to say that we do recognize that rationalization is an issue, particularly in areas around Northumberland Strait and in areas where catches are very low.

We are doing some work on this issue. We have supported lobster fishers in the past. We had done a small marketing campaign earlier in this season. We have responded to fishers by implementing a $500,000 capital gains exemption, which we then bumped up to $750,000.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Chair, does the minister believe that investments in fishery science is important to a healthy fish stock? Just a yes or no would be fine.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Madam Chair, I have said several times in the House that science is the basis for decisions in DFO. There is a lot of pressure for sciences as technologies change and new ways of doing science are discovered. There are new pressures to do science in a number of different areas so, of course, I think science is very important.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Chair, I would like then to ask the minister a series of questions about the 2009-10 estimates.

From those estimates, I am referring to sustainable fisheries in aquaculture. I would like to ask the minister if she would look at the science for sustainable fisheries in aquaculture forecast for 2008-09 of $165.3 million. The plan for 2011-12 is a decrease over those years to $140.3 million, a difference of $25 million.

I would like to ask the minister if she would advise what exactly she is cutting from the science for sustainable fisheries in aquaculture.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Madam Chair, the 2009-10 report on plans and priorities indicates that the total planned spending on science has decreased by $32.4 million. The most significant reason for the decrease is due to the transfer of funds to the Canadian Coast Guard for fleet operational readiness, which ensures that the Coast Guard has the means and the ability to respond to the on-water and marine related needs for science.

We simply have taken what we have paid the Coast Guard in the past for its cost of assisting us with the science and that has now gone into the Coast Guard's operational fund. Members will see that in several areas of the budget the science money has simply gone to the Coast Guard.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Chair, I am looking under healthy and productive aquatic ecosystems, sustainable development integrated management of resources for in and around Canada's aquatic environment through oceans and fish habitat species at risk management, and I see that science for health and productive aquatic ecosystems is down $8.5 million. Is the answer the same?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Madam Chair, yes, for the same reason. In all three areas of science, we have moved the amount of money that the Coast Guard would normally charge us for the services that we use it for in our science projects and we have moved that to the Coast Guard.