Debates of Feb. 2nd, 2015

Opposition Motion—Newfoundland and Labrador Fisheries Investment Fund

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could comment on a couple of things about this particular deal.

First, we only have a day to debate this. This is not specifically about the merits of free trade with the European Union. This is about a specific measure between the national government and its subnational government, being Newfoundland and Labrador.

I hearken back to October 2013. In the release that was put out by the provincial government, it states unequivocally:

The fund will be used to invest in research and development, new marketing initiatives, fisheries research, and enhancements....

That is the same line it used throughout the entire spread. From 2013 to 2014, there have been a few correspondences, but nothing was ever made public that pointed out it is wrong.

In other words, the provincial government never said it was only to be used in case of demonstrated losses. Did the federal government point that out to them at some point? Before 2014, in that full year, did it point out that it was wrong in the release? Why would the federal government not do that?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, obviously I was not in the room at any time during negotiations between the province and our government.

I can assure members, as I mentioned earlier in my presentation, that in every other sector we have negotiated with, during the negotiations leading up to the completion of the Canada-European trade agreement, we said that if there is an injury in their particular sector, let us talk about how we can help compensate for that injury so we do not scuttle the entire free trade agreement. Every single time, we have taken that approach, as we did here.

The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador can put out all the press releases it wants, but it does not detract from the fact that our consistent approach to dealing with provinces and territories for compensation loss has been consistent every single time.

There has to be demonstrated proof, empirical evidence, that injury has taken place. If it has, we will step up to the plate. We will do so here as well.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad debate. I think there is an absence of logic here.

First of all, compensation, by definition, means there has to be a loss. However, the agreement has not even been signed yet. There cannot be any loss. Why would there be a demand that money be paid for compensation for loss under an agreement that has not even been signed?

The whole thing is illogical. It boggles the mind that the opposition would waste an entire day of this country's time on this kind of a debate.

As the member pointed out, why would the federal government give a huge benefit, almost half a billion dollars, to one province, when three others are involved in the very same industry and there is nothing for them? No government in its right mind would ever be so unfair and inequitable in an agreement.

I do not know why the opposition is even bringing these nonsensical arguments forward. I invite my friend to tell me what he thinks is behind this kind of a debate when it defies every rule of logic that any of us have ever learned.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill for once again demonstrating that she has an abundance of common sense.

The member is absolutely right. The federal government would not enter into an agreement saying, without attachment, without any strings, “Here is $400 million. Do with it what you wish, even if there is not going to be any injury.” Of course, we will not even know that until implementation of the agreement itself, which has not occurred.

I agree with my esteemed colleague. I do not know why the NDP would bring this forward, other than that it is trying to create a political wedge. It is trying to create an issue. It does not matter whether it is fact-free, which it is, the NDP is simply trying to politicize the situation. We are trying to work with the province for the betterment, not only of that province, but the entire nation.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite concerned about what I heard from my colleague across the aisle. He talked a lot about setting up a process to identify the negative impact that the agreement is having on the fishing industry in Newfoundland.

First of all, does the government have a game plan for that work? Since this process needs to be set up, are the Conservatives already working with Newfoundland to come up with criteria to assess the impact?

Second, the same considerations have been suggested regarding possible compensation for Quebec's cheese makers. We were told that if there are any losses, compensation will follow. What is happening with that file?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks a few moments ago, we are continually working with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to see whether there would be any injury, such as lost revenue or job losses, resulting from the removal of the minimum processing requirement. This is an ongoing process.

If we can establish a mechanism whereby the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador can demonstrate to the federal government that there have been certain injuries and that compensation is required, then we will be there. We will certainly honour our commitment. However, so far there has been no such demonstration of injury, and there may never be. Through the larger CETA agreement, the fishing and seafood industry in Newfoundland and Labrador may be able to go into the European Union and other parts of the world without worry because it can compete with other countries and compete at an even higher level than it is now.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl for putting this motion forward. It is extremely important that this be debated in the House. I am shocked to hear the member for Calgary—Nose Hill call it a waste of time to talk about something involving federal-provincial relations between Newfoundland and Labrador and Ottawa. It was an agreement made between two levels of government at the request of the Government of Canada.

I was supposed to be here earlier today. A taxi left my house at 6:30 a.m., Ottawa time, to get a flight to get here. I got here around 3 p.m. This is a big, diverse country. Each province and jurisdiction has its own industry, issues, problems and jurisdictional responsibilities. Each province acts in a different way within its provincial jurisdiction.

The Alberta government runs its oil and gas industry and royalty regime program differently from other parts of the country. Agriculture is a very important sector in Quebec, Ontario and out west. They all have different ways of doing things. Inside the jurisdiction of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador had certainly policy tools at its disposal to protect, develop and grow its industries, and to support the rural culture.

The Newfoundland and Labrador government has had a system of minimum processing requirements for a long time so Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can benefit as much as possible from the resources around their shores. Newfoundland and Labrador brought this into the Confederation in 1949, along with all the oil and gas resources in the offshore, as a contributing member of the Canadian Federation.

A lot of the talk around slush funds reminds me of the attitudes of some Canadians about treating Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as some sort of a handout province within Canada. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is only recently that Newfoundland and Labrador has been considered a have province, with oil and gas prices at a very significant level. That may or may not change as a result of the drop in oil prices, but we are very proud to contribute on a fiscal level in a way that we had not before. However, we have always contributed to Canada in terms of our resources, our human resources, our educated and skilled people who went throughout Canada and helped to create the wealth of Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia. That is part of what Confederation is about.

We do have divided jurisdictions in Canada. We have federal responsibilities and we have provincial responsibilities. International trade is a federal matter. It is up to the Government of Canada to negotiate trade deals. CETA is one of them, and it is an important one. There is no question about it.

However, this is not about CETA and whether it is good or bad for Canada and Newfoundland. We know that there are big advantages to the Newfoundland fishery of the removal of the tariff on shrimp and cod fish. It has been an irritant for many years. In fact, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have complained about the fact that the Government of Canada has not used its influence with Europe to fix this in the past. There have been complaints for decades, going back 30, 40, 50 years, about the failure of the Government of Canada to protect the offshore fish stocks in Newfoundland and Labrador, instead of allowing them to be overfished and reduced to the point they were.

There is a lot of history around this. The jurisdiction of the Newfoundland government to have control over fish processing and minimum processing requirements is part of a policy tool that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has had.

Seafood production and the provincial seafood sector are extremely important to Newfoundland and Labrador, with over $1 billion in production value in 2013 alone and more than 18,000 people directly employed, mainly in the rural parts of the province. Minimum processing requirements are one of the policy tools within the jurisdiction of the Newfoundland and Labrador government.

What happened? This conflicted with the negotiated requirements and expectations of the Europeans, who said to Canada that they wanted it off the table. They wanted Newfoundland and Labrador to withdraw that policy tool. That was not said by Newfoundland and Labrador; it was said by the Europeans.

Then the Government of Canada, the Minister of International Trade and his department, called and asked the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to do this. They said that it was a demand at the table and they would like Newfoundland and Labrador to get rid of this policy tool as it affected the deal with Europe. It was not just for next year but forever. The province was asked what it would like in return for giving up this policy tool. The negotiations then began in good faith and resulted in an agreement.

However, this was not solely about compensating individuals who may have lost a specific job. I think that was what the federal government wanted initially, but it was very clear that was not what resulted at the end of the day. In fact, the negotiations, the exchange of letters, all of those things have been examined by independent people, including, for example, Professor Saul Schwartz, the public policy professor at Carleton University. He looked at the documents, the exchange and the correspondence, even correspondence from the minister responsible for ACOA. He concluded that the province's interpretation of what went on in the final deal was absolutely right.

A CBC story reads:

Saul Schwartz said based on his analysis of letters between former International Trade Minister...and Keith Hutchings, the former provincial fisheries minister, the deal is broader than what the federal government is now saying.

Schwartz said the letters show the money is meant to build a fishery of the future.

Therefore, when the minister said that this was only for adjustment and Mr. Hutchings said, no, that they wanted it for both any harm that might be done and for industry development, the positions were clear. In the end, the Minister of International Trade caved and said that the province could use it for industry development as well.

The article continues with:

Schwartz said the federal government could not have believed the fund was to be used for displaced workers only.

This is consistent with the debate we have heard from the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl. He quoted a lot of correspondence and letters on what went on for many months.

This is a matter of great controversy in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not something that just slid under the table. The Newfoundland government was criticized by people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, by people who were concerned about giving up this policy tool, people who said that it should not do that. The government had to take the criticism on chin, but made it very clear that this agreement was about fisheries development, fisheries research, marketing development and other aspects of the fishery of the future.

I mentioned earlier about different jurisdictions. The federal government is responsible for fisheries, but the Newfoundland government is responsible for fish processing and other aspects of the fishing industry. However, because this is such a big concern in Newfoundland and Labrador that the federal government has let it down, Newfoundland has gone into paying for its own scientific research because the federal government has failed to do so.

This is not a waste of time today. We are asking the House to recognize that it is very important for the Government of Canada, in dealing with the province, to deal in good faith. When one makes a deal, one makes a deal. The deal was $400 million.

I can say without question that the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador would never be able to say to anyone in the House that this $400 million was only for individuals who would lose their jobs in the next two, three or four years in the implementation. Not a chance. In fact, the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and Keith Hutchings, the minister of intergovernmental affairs and former fisheries minister, told me that they were told by the federal government to think outside the box, that this was not just about the fisheries. Whatever the province wanted to put on the table, the federal government wanted it to give up this jurisdiction, this policy. This was not talking about how the workers individually might be affected. The federal government wanted the province to give up the jurisdiction and asked what it wanted from the federal government in return.

There were lots of things on the table. What it came down to in the end was a joint fund. The Government of Canada would put up as much as $280 million and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador $120 million.

What was that for? Was it to compensate individual workers? No. If there were demonstrable effects, they would be compensated, but outside of that, it was designed as a fund.

This $280 million is in the federal budget now. It is not there for 2020, when this deal might be implemented and we might be seeing some effects; it is in the budget now, and it is designated for the fisheries investment fund. It is an investment fund, not a compensation fund. It is a fisheries investment fund to deal with marketing, development, innovation, research, and all of those things that are important to Newfoundland and Labrador because of the significant need for the province to develop its fishery, independent of some of the other problems that are going to come about.

Therefore, this is not something one could even argue about. When the Minister of Justice came to Newfoundland and said, “This is not meant to be a slush fund”, what an insult it was to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. What an insult to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to suggest that is what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are trying to pretend it is, that they want slush from the Government of Canada. I am shocked and shamed that the minister would say that.

Not too long ago, before the minister was responsible for ACOA, the minister was the regional minister for Newfoundland and Labrador. For him to come to Newfoundland and Labrador and say that I found insulting and not worthy of him, frankly. The Minister of Justice knows Newfoundland and Labrador. He has lots of good friends there. He goes fishing in Newfoundland and Labrador. I found it offensive for him to say that.

We have even heard it suggested that this was a fund for all the Atlantic provinces. I do not know who said that. I hope the minister can say that he did not say that and that he never intended that. Of course, why would Newfoundland and Labrador put up $120 million for an Atlantic fund if no other provinces were doing anything to do with that?

However, that is how far this debate has gone. It seems that it is like shifting sand to sit down with the Government of Canada and make an agreement in good faith. It was something the Government of Canada wanted. It was not Newfoundland and Labrador going cap in hand to Ottawa and asking the government to do something for it because it might be affected by this deal. It was a specific policy option that the European negotiators said to Canada they wanted off the table or there would be no deal. The Newfoundland and Labrador government, in good faith, entertained the request from Ottawa to do this, knowing it was a policy option that whatever its use or effect was now, was something they could not do in five or 10 or 20 years' time, because this was an agreement that was going to last forever.

There were negotiations and discussions back and forth between two mature partners, each with its own constitutional jurisdictions. This is not someone coming cap in hand looking for a handout from a parent. This is a jurisdiction that has it as a right under its law, whether we like it or not. Some people might call it protectionist. I can call Buy America protectionist too, but it does not change the power of the United States to do it.

We can argue whatever way we want about the trade deal itself and on the whole net benefit question, and that debate is going on in Canada, at least in some quarters. The Liberals have decided they like the deal. They did not need to read it. They did not need to see the text. They did not need to see anything. Whatever the government does on it, they support it.

We are having a look at that, and at the end of the day we will decide what our view is on it. In the meantime, this debate is not about that. It is about a specific detail that involves the Government of Canada, which we hope and fully expect can deal in good faith with the partners of Confederation.

We know the Prime Minister does not meet with the provincial premiers as a whole. He had a meeting with our premier in December, and our premier came away and said, “I don't think we can trust this guy.”

That is a shocking state of affairs. A Conservative premier of Newfoundland and Labrador came to Ottawa to meet with the Prime Minister, knowing the background and expecting that it was obviously some misunderstanding because the minister responsible for ACOA , even in early October of 2014, was referring to it as a fishery transition initiative and by the end of the month was saying something different.

The premier came to Ottawa with the minister of intergovernmental affairs and said, “Obviously this is a misunderstanding. We'll go to the source. We'll talk to the Prime Minister and it'll be sorted out. If there's a misunderstanding, we've got the documents, we've got the correspondence, we've to the whole shebang.”

He did not hear anything from the Minister of International Trade, by the way. He was absent from this discussion. He is the guy who made the deal, but he was not around. The minister responsible for ACOA was put on the hot seat and told, “Okay, you're going to take this position now”, but he did not negotiate the deal. I do not think the minister for ACOA was at the table.

The Minister of International Trade and his representatives were, including, according to John Ivison of the National Post, the now principal secretary for Minister of International Trade, who was at the table and who did write to the Prime Minister and the Newfoundland government about this matter.

However, all of these people who were involved were not around. It was just the minister responsible for ACOA who was asked to carry the bad news to Newfoundland and Labrador that we were not going to follow this agreement.

Newfoundlanders are a trusting group of people. When they make a deal, they feel that the other party is going to follow through in the good faith that the deal was made, so the premier came to Ottawa to see the Prime Minister and had a meeting, apparently on very short notice, with the Prime Minister, which was a good thing. I am certainly pleased to hear that it took place. Unfortunately, the results of that meeting were very dissatisfying for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador because, lo and behold, the Prime Minister repeated what now appear to be talking points. We heard the deputy government House leader repeat those talking points today, saying “Why would we do that?”

Well, the fact of the matter is that the government did do that. Why? It was because it wanted Newfoundland and Labrador to give up this jurisdictional policy tool that it had at its disposal and was using and wanted to continue to use. The idea was “We will give it up, not for the benefits of CETA in general but in response to the program that the Government of Canada put on the table after much negotiation.”

As John Ivison says:

The solution is simple. The [Conservative] government should stump up the $280 million it agreed to pay on the implementation of CETA. And Ministers Hutchings and King should stay home and save their breath....

That is the problem we have. The problem is that the government is not meeting the agreement that it made and is not following through on its commitments. Unfortunately, given those circumstances, it cannot be trusted.

I do not think this can be belaboured very much, but I do want to say there was an email to the Newfoundland government in October of 2013—so this agreement is not new; this is old—to Mr. Bill Hawkins, chief of staff to the trade minister, who is now the Prime Minister's principal secretary. The email says:

...a transitional program of up to a combined total of $400 million that would address fish and seafood industry development and renewal, as well as workers whose jobs are displaced in future.

That was the deal. It is known to be the deal, and this government is trying to back out of it.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. friend's speech, even that final quote.

Worker displacement, research and development, innovation, a fisheries transition initiative: these are all things that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was asking for, and these are all things that we are perfectly willing to work with the province together for on this fund. We have committed to this fund and we have budgeted for this fund. Even in the letter the hon. member just cited and all throughout our correspondence with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, all of which was released by the previous premier, it says “up to $400 million”—“up to”.

We have referenced some of the various initiatives that could be funded under the fund, but there is not a person in this place who would say that a compensation fund should be accessed without some measure of impact. We have committed to being flexible in how that looks and how we measure the impact. For example, we have not tied a specific loss of a job to funding for that specific loss, but we have said that there has to be a measurement of impact. We have said that publicly and with the premier.

I was pleased that the Prime Minister met with Premier Davis, but he was very clear that for a compensation fund, there has to be a measure of loss. The hon. member is a lawyer, and he would know this. We as a government, through the CETA, have negotiated compensation funds with both the pharmaceutical and dairy sectors, but there has to be a measure of loss.

Does the hon. member honestly believe that there could be an expectation of a $400 million compensation fund with no way to measure that compensation? That is what we are talking about here today. CETA is tremendous for Newfoundland and Labrador, and this fund is there in case there is any impact whatsoever on the province as a result of giving up minimum processing requirements.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I reject the notion, and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador long ago rejected the notion, that this was a compensation fund for affected individuals. If it is compensation at all—and I do not think it is—the fund is compensation for the government giving up the policy tool.

“Up to” $400 million is really about the 70-30 split. If the Newfoundland government would pay up to $120 million, the federal government would come up with the other $280 million. The $400 million is the combined fund based on the province's contribution. That is where the “up to” comes from. It is very clear that for each $1 that the Newfoundland government puts into this investment fund, the Government of Canada will put in $4. That is where the $400 million comes from. The money is not there as a compensation fund for individuals, although some individuals may receive some assistance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my hon. colleague, who always provides valuable input, but my comments are really angled at ACOA.

The member of Parliament for Labrador sent in an order paper question back in December, and here is the response that she received. I thought I would bring it to the attention of the House and to the minister.

The question asks in part about any involvement by the government in the announcement of October 29, 2013, which is where this debate comes from.

The question following the affirmative answer asked about the nature of that involvement. The response to that particular question was simply, in part, “ACOA was not involved in this file at the time of the announcement.”

We are well aware that ACOA was not involved in the announcement, but it says it was not involved in the file. Why has the minister for ACOA now become the grim reaper of Newfoundland and Labrador, the ultimate deliverer of bad news for Newfoundland and Labrador? Why has the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency become the Atlantic Canada disopportunity agency? I would like to know the answers to these questions, as would a lot of people. Something happened between the time of the announcement and this past fall that made a lot of people start changing their minds, and I think we are facing the government that managed to do that.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor does not think this debate is a waste of time. However, he raises a very good point. If this were a fisheries adjustment fund, we would have the minister responsible for Service Canada implementing this for worker adjustment. We would not have ACOA. We might have the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or something like that.

This is an industry fund for research and development and things like that. The Minister of State for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency was brought in after the fact. He was not part of the deal. He did not negotiate the deal. He was brought in for implementation purposes only, to implement a deal that was about industry renewal, industry development, research and development, and innovation, those things his ministry does in other aspects of industry, so it is not surprising to me.

What is surprising to me is that he has been told to do something that is not even related to his department, which is basically worker adjustment. I am afraid we have a serious problem here, and that minister has been sent out to carry the bad can for a government that would not keep its deal.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for St. John's East for his excellent speech.

As the hon. member for St. John's East knows, this is not the first time the current Prime Minister and his government have betrayed Newfoundland and Labrador. A betrayal took place in 2006, when the Prime Minister failed to live up to his promise to exclude offshore resource revenues from equalization. That created a war between Danny Williams and the Prime Minister and the current government. Now we have it reneging on this $400-million fund and what it was supposed to be used for.

My question for the member for St. John's East is this. Why does he think the current government and the Prime Minister are so set on betraying Newfoundland and Labrador? Why is this happening?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked a very good question. I well recall the debate about the Atlantic accord and the government not keeping its word. In fact, one of its own members, Bill Casey, a member from Nova Scotia, left the government, because Nova Scotia too was affected by the current government making a commitment and then breaking that commitment in the Atlantic accord. Of course, it affected Newfoundland and Labrador tremendously, and it affected Nova Scotia as well. I remember being in Parliament after 2008, with Mr. Casey sitting down next to us in opposition, having crossed the floor, because he believed that his province too had been betrayed.

It is not just Newfoundland and Labrador that is affected by the current Prime Minister and the government not keeping their word to the people of Canada. Unfortunately, it has happened in the past, but this is another example of it happening today. It is a strong issue of trust.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has himself tangled up a bit here. The compensation package was always for the impacts of the agreement. The agreement has not come into effect yet. It has to be ratified in the EU. It has 28 member states, so it is going to take time to work through the process. Of course, there are no impacts at the present time. In fact, the member in his remarks confirmed that. He said it was for impacts in the industry, and then he went on to say, when he quoted Mr. Ivison, that in fact it was for demonstrable impacts. In fact, that is the Government of Canada's position. The details were to be worked out before CETA came into effect. That would be right now.

Why did the member change his story partway through, when he said that actually the agreement was for giving up the MPR? That is not what was agreed to. In fact, the terms the province put forward are exactly what the Government of Canada is willing to negotiate, but that is not what the fund was set up for, and there are no demonstrable impacts at this time. Why is the member talking on both sides of the equation here?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose I could ask the member for Nanaimo—Alberni why the Government of Canada would put $280 million into last year's budget if it was intended to compensate for something that would happen in 2020.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

That is a very good question.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question, I am reminded by my colleague. I would ask if the member could answer that.

It is pretty clear what the Prime Minister said after the meeting with Premier Davis. The Prime Minister's Office said that it “was always intended to compensate hard-working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for demonstrable losses...; it was never intended to be a blank cheque.”

Here are talking points replacing a defined agreement that was about something else entirely. That is unfortunately the way the current government operates.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Oshawa, who is also the hard-working Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment.

I am pleased to stand today to speak to the issue that has been raised and to the benefits of the Canada-EU comprehensive economic and trade agreement, also known as CETA. I will focus today on the fact that the agreement will have great benefits for the fish and seafood industry, in addition to the Canadian economy more broadly.

The agreement will provide new and expanded economic opportunities for those who make their living from the fishery and seafood sectors, both in Newfoundland and Labrador and across Canada. The timely implementation of this agreement is in the best interests of hard-working fishermen and seafood producers throughout our nation.

As members are aware, CETA is a key component of our government's ambitious trade agenda, which is aimed at creating jobs and economic prosperity for all Canadians.

First I would note that this is Canada's most ambitious trade agreement ever. The agreement would provide Canada with preferential market access to Europe's 500-million-strong consumer economy and $17 trillion of economic activity. In fact, a joint study conducted with the EU prior to the outset of negotiations concluded that the agreement could boost Canada's income by $12 billion annually and bilateral trade by 20% across all sectors.

CETA would have significant benefits across the spectrum of all fishing and seafood activities, from wild harvest to aquaculture to processing. Aquaculture, as well, is a big player in the Newfoundland and Labrador economy.

Between 2011 and 2013, Canada's fish and seafood exports to the EU were worth an average of about $390 million per year. These exports are currently subject to high tariffs, averaging 11% and reaching as high as 25%. Between the years 2008 and 2012, Canadian firms paid between $20 million and $30 million annually in tariffs on the export of seafood products. Those tariffs are what the negotiation is about. They will be removed, and as processors in Newfoundland and Labrador are quite willing to acknowledge, this will be a tremendous aspect of the agreement, and it will create opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador.

For example, Newfoundland and Labrador exports a significant amount of seafood to the EU, which is subject to these tariffs. Such charges include up to 12% of the export value of frozen shrimp.

As a member of the fisheries committee a few years ago, I was in Newfoundland and Labrador visiting some of the processing facilities. I remember clearly a visit to St. Anthony, at the northern tip of the peninsula of Newfoundland, and a huge state-of-the-art factory there. I think Clearwater was part of that. The amazing factory there was open in 1999. It processes something like 14 million pounds of shrimp every season and employs between 200 and 215 people. It can also make 120 metric tonnes of ice per day. That is a big operation. It is state-of-the-art and very impressive.

That factory and others like it would have unfettered access. The tariff on exported shrimp, cooked and peeled, in retail packages currently is a rate of 20%. That tariff would be removed when CETA is finally signed. The agreement has been signed in principle on both sides, but it will be finally implemented on both sides as all the legal drafting goes through. In Canada, we deal with two official languages, and when we are dealing with international agreements, they have to be translated and the text has to be agreed upon. However, in Europe, where they have 22 official languages, it takes a little longer to work through some of the legal processes. That process is playing itself out right now.

There is an 8% tariff on snow crab and an 8% tariff on frozen scallops. These additional costs have negatively impacted the competitiveness of Newfoundland and Labrador's seafood products in the European market. They have made it an uphill battle for our industry to attract new consumers and expand its market share.

Those tariffs and barriers will be removed under the new CETA.

Today Canadian seafood producers export about 377 types of fish and seafood products to the EU. Because of our ambitious trade agreement, led by our government, tariffs on 360 of those will be eliminated on day one of the agreement being in force. That day has not yet arrived, which is why the negative impacts that are the subject of the discussion today have not appeared at the present time. If there are negative impacts, they will need to be assessed, but that agreement and those impacts will not be in play until the agreement comes into force.

The tariffs on the other 17 products will be phased out after three, five, or seven years, but it will not be necessary for fishermen and seafood producers to wait to see these benefits accrue. If it is a three-year timeline, the tariffs will drop by one-third the first year and two-thirds the second and will be completely removed by the third year.

As I stated, the Canadian seafood industry will see real benefits of this deal accumulate quickly, once the agreement is brought into force. The reductions in tariffs will translate into savings that can be either reinvested into businesses to make them more competitive and more innovative or to help them grow their share of the European market through more competitive pricing. The bottom line is that tariff elimination will make Canada's seafood products more competitive and lucrative in Europe, which means more jobs and greater prosperity for the sector and for Canada's coastal communities here at home.

I should note that all of these figures are based on recent exports of Canadian fish and seafood products. The numbers do not account for the increased opportunities CETA will provide for additional Canadian fish and seafood products as new demand is generated in the European market.

CETA also contains important flexibility for Canadian industry, such as rules of origin, which will benefit Canadian fish and seafood processors and ensure that they remain competitive in a global marketplace. Rules of origin allow customs authorities to determine where a product originates or is wholly obtained so that they can apply the relevant tariff to the product as it enters the country.

In practice, these favourable product-specific rules of origin will allow Canada to import fish to our country from a non-party, like the United States, and enable the Canadian industry to process the fish for export to the European Union under the preferential tariffs granted through CETA. This will benefit the Canadian seafood processing industry greatly and those who work in the field. For example, in my home province of British Columbia, the industry processes Alaskan sockeye salmon for export, in addition to Canadian catches. On the east coast, New Brunswick processes Maine lobsters to sell abroad.

The fact is that these favourable rules of origin will result in more opportunity for seafood processors across Canada, including Newfoundland's processing industry.

Our government has managed to achieve all of these benefits while maintaining Canada's full discretion over licensing of fishing and related activities, including the government's ongoing policy of preventing foreign firms from having greater than 49% ownership of a processing plant and from holding a commercial fishing licence.

With regard to port access, CETA does not change how we control port access or how we apply the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. We will still have the power and the authority to require the vessels entering our fishing waters to do so under the authorities of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and the minister will continue to have the discretion to grant a licence for them to operate in our waters or to transit our waters to a Canadian port. Therefore, this agreement does not change our current operations with regard to European vessels.

Our government has embarked on an ambitious trade agenda, and we are opening other sections, such as the trans-Pacific partnership and the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Korea is our seventh largest trading partner. All of these measures bring new opportunities for Canadian producers.

Therefore, I hope that all members will support CETA and that the members who raised the concerns today will allow the process to work through and will allow negotiations to take place with the federal government and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As was indicated, we are in a position to and are willing to negotiate the terms.

However, to expect to have a fund administered without demonstrable harms is not reasonable and is unfair to other agreements with other provinces. I hope members will appreciate that as we carry on with the discussion today and support the CETA in every way.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech and also for pronouncing Newfoundland properly. Well done, sir.

My question is this. Bill Hawkins, the then chief of staff to the trade minister, is now the Prime Minister's principal secretary. In a letter he wrote to the Newfoundland government on October 23, 2013, he talked about a “transitional program of up to a combined total of $400 million that would address fish and seafood industry development and renewal”. That does not sound at all like compensation in case of losses, because it was not compensation in case of losses.

I have two questions. First, how can the Conservatives do such an about-face on this? Second, the former Progressive Conservative premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Kathy Dunderdale, held a news conference in October 2013 and announced all of the details of this $400 million fund, exactly what it was for, and what it would be spent on. Why did the Conservative government wait more than a year before raising a single objection?

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's determination to represent the interests of his province, but a news release is hardly the same as a negotiated agreement. The details were to be worked out before CETA came into force.

The letter from a Canadian official that the member referred to demonstrates the government's willingness to discuss the rollout of that compensation fund, but it has always been the Government of Canada's position that it is for demonstrable impacts.

There was a lot of rain in British Columbia and some flooding in my area. Insurance compensation happens when people's homes are flooded. I live further from the river and no one in my area was flooded out, and to expect compensation because we live in an area where there are floods without evidence of our homes being harmed is not reasonable.

I hope the member understands that when the government signs these agreements, we tend to apply them fairly, as we do with the dairy industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and other industries that are impacted. The same will be true with Newfoundland. We will want to make sure that Newfoundland does very well with the agreement. It should do well with increased opportunities to export to Europe, and where there are demonstrated negative effects, we will make sure that the fund is implemented.

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing I noticed in the correspondence, when we received the answer to the order paper question, was that there was a lot of activity and conversations that took place between two levels of government from the fall of 2013, November, right up until June of 2014, but then there is scant mention of that. They go by the wayside until October and into November. Therefore, in that period, there seemed to be a lot of activity, but nothing was really happening at that point.

Although he says they are living up to the deal in questions, whether the words “up to” are used, or in many cases that demonstrable losses are assumed in this particular case, these arguments on certain other measures are valid. However, in this particular case, there is no doubt in my mind, as my colleague pointed out, that nothing was said in the media about how wrong it was to assume that the province would get the full $400 million. It also seemed like there was a change in tone altogether a year after the announcement. Something happened that led the government of Newfoundland and Labrador to assume that the deal was not what it had signed originally.

Seeing that the hon. member has notes there, I would like him to demonstrate to us how wrong the Progressive Conservative government in Newfoundland and Labrador is to assume this. Is the government misleading all of us?

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite, as I do all members from Newfoundland. They are great debaters and have a lot of passion, and we appreciate that.

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

On division.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Just not right very often.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, sometimes we obviously have disagreements on issues.

The details were to be worked out before CETA came into force. It could be another year before the final agreements are signed, as translations and legal drafting are completed. It is right now when these things should be negotiated, but doing it in a confrontational manner is not the best way to get the best results. Compensation will be delivered where demonstrable losses can in fact be demonstrated, but for one party to do the negotiating and expect that what it wants is what will be arrived at and that the conclusions will be there without negotiation is probably not reasonable.