:
I call this meeting to order.
I'd like to begin by thanking Mr. Comerford for coming here today on behalf of ACOA to meet with the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to discuss the issues surrounding CCFI.
Mr. Comerford, we generally allow 10 minutes for presentations to the committee. You'll hear some beeping noises up here as we try to stick to fairly specific time constraints for questions and answers. With presentations we try to keep it as close as possible to the time line. If you hear a beeping when you're speaking, maybe you can move it forward and try to begin the wrap-up.
Before I turn the floor over to Mr. Comerford, I'd like to assure him that he has the full attention of the committee this morning.
Mr. Comerford, the floor is yours.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having provided me this opportunity to meet with the committee and discuss the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation, or CCFI.
The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency was established in 1987 as the federal regional economic development agency for Atlantic Canada. Its headquarters are in Moncton, New Brunswick, and it has regional offices in the capital city of each of the four Atlantic provinces.
The agency's mandate is to advance the economy of the region across all sectors through advocacy, coordination of the economic development activities of federal departments, and the delivery of programs designed to effect specific outcomes. The agency's programs focus on business development, community development, and innovation.
The Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation is owned by Memorial University of Newfoundland and housed at the university's Marine Institute in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. The CCFI works with the fishing industry to assist the sector to access the research capacity of the various institutions throughout Atlantic Canada. CCFI does not carry out any research and development. There are at least 20 organizations and institutions with fisheries-related research capacity in Atlantic Canada, and I've attached a list of those.
ACOA was involved in the establishment of the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation 20 years ago. I was personally involved for the first 13 years of the CCFI's existence as the representative of the agency on the board of directors and the executive committee of the board. At that time, there was recognition that the fishing industry was not benefiting to the degree possible from access to the scientific and technical capabilities of institutions, particularly the Marine Institute and Memorial University. It was also felt that the institutional capacity was not being applied to the fishing industry.
In 1988 ACOA had just become operational, with a mandate to support economic development across Atlantic Canada. The fishing industry was facing particular challenges in the groundfish sector, and more innovation was needed. For the period from 1988 to 1999, the agency provided a total of $15 million to fund two five-year mandates for the CCFI.
The economy of Atlantic Canada has evolved over time and ACOA's approaches have adapted to these changes. In the late 1990s the agency moved to a more business direct delivery model.
After the second five-year mandate, we challenged the CCFI to become more sustainable and to seek other sources of funding for their operations. Funding from federal-provincial agreements maintained the CCFI for a further three-year period.
In 2002, the agency launched the Atlantic Innovation Fund, or AIF, as a major initiative to stimulate growth through innovation in Atlantic Canada. The focus was to encourage, facilitate, and fund the commercialization of research in the business community and institutions. Priority was given to initiatives that had specific research plans with expected outcomes that integrated the institutional research capacity and business enterprises with products that were capable of commercialization.
CCFI received funding from the first round of AIF, but was advised once again that they needed to pursue a sustainable governance and funding model. Three subsequent proposals by CCFI to the Atlantic Innovation Fund were not successful.
Finally, in 2008 CCFI secured $1.5 million in ACOA funding through the agency's Innovative Communities Fund, with the provision that CCFI provide a sustainability plan. The subsequent plan that was presented required that the agency provide $1 million per year indefinitely in order for CCFI to operate.
ACOA openly acknowledges the contribution that CCFI has made, along with research bodies throughout the region, to the integration of research and innovation in the development of the region's fisheries sector. However, over the course of 20 years, the fishing industry has evolved, research institutions have become more directly engaged in outreach to the private sector, and ACOA's approaches and programs have evolved to reflect the changes in the economy.
The seafood industry in Atlantic Canada developed its own direct path to research and innovation funding, as witnessed by the approximately $60 million provided to fishing and aquaculture organizations under ACOA's Atlantic Innovation Fund since 2002.
Companies and institutions from across Atlantic Canada have pursued AIF to access support for key R and D projects tied to downstream commercial opportunities for individual companies or for the sector generally. A few examples include the following: Quinlan Brothers Limited of St. Anthony, Newfoundland and Labrador, has accessed AIF to support research and development in the processing of chitin and chitosan, which are natural derivatives of shrimp and crab shell waste; Acadian Seaplants Limited of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, accessed AIF to pursue research into the development and commercialization of two new seaweed food products; AIF is supporting Aqua Bounty Canada Inc. of Souris, Prince Edward Island, in its research designed to generate technology to produce reproductively sterile Atlantic salmon; and the University of Prince Edward Island, Atlantic Veterinary College, is using AIF support to research the effects of lobster moulting to increase the quality and value of the landed products in Southwest Nova, Nova Scotia.
A key objective of the Atlantic Innovation Fund is to link the industrial capabilities around commercialization with the institutional capacity for research and development. But this objective is also a shared objective of players throughout the region. For example, currently there are industry outreach offices at 14 universities and colleges within Atlantic Canada, and I have attached a listing for your viewing. Most of these have been established since the inception of the Atlantic Innovation Fund. Each of these offices has a mandate to be engaged with, and to be relevant to, all sectors of the Atlantic economy, including the fishery.
There is a constant state of dialogue within the sector. For example, new technologies are enabling institutions to identify their research capability and promote it to relevant audiences. Memorial University recently announced a new web-based search engine for exactly this purpose. This interchange is constant and ongoing and it did not exist 20 years ago when the CCFI was established.
Over the last two decades, ACOA's programs have adjusted and responded to the transforming nature of the economy of Atlantic Canada. Our business programs now provide repayable loans rather than non-repayable contributions. Our community programs are designed to stimulate sustainable economic activities directly in affected communities. Our innovation programs require specific research outcomes that result in commercialization and projects that are self-sustaining.
The agency's position is that the original objective behind the establishment of the CCFI has been accomplished. The fishing industry and the institutions with related research capacity are working well with each other. The need for a stand-alone, non-sustainable organization, which requires $2 million per year to facilitate research and development, is no longer a compelling or appropriate use of ACOA funds.
Thank you very much.
Thanks, Rick, for appearing before us.
You relay a story about ACOA being extremely successful in terms of stimulating innovation in Atlantic Canada—and yes, indeed you have. I think the organization has brought a tremendous amount of leadership, expertise, as well as dollars, badly needed money, to creating an innovative culture and capacity in the Atlantic region, which I think is a model for the rest of the country.
This is where we get into more of a philosophical debate about innovation and the innovation chain. I was reading an interesting editorial or column in The Globe and Mail on Saturday by the president and vice-chancellor of the University of Calgary. He made the point that in Canada we're extremely good at innovation, but not very good at the innovation chain or making these technical advances translate into commercial activity. The president of the University of Calgary said that establishing networks to be able to facilitate a completion of that chain was absolutely essential to the commercialization of Canadian innovation and prosperity in Canadian business. He referring specifically to those knowledge networks like CCFI that allow basic or pure science to be translated into applied science and into commercial innovation. He said that was lacking.
We heard from the executive director of the CCFI that there may be a concern on ACOA's part that the linkages in that innovation chain, when it comes to the fishing industry, are mature enough that CCFI is no longer needed.
Rick, would you be able to describe to us how the fishing industry has this critical issue so right, and how it can be used as a model for the rest of the country, because it's clearly lacking for the rest of the country?
I know we have a limited amount of time, but I have a second question. The CCFI has met or exceeded all provisions under third party delivery mechanisms, as outlined in both the Treasury Board and the Auditor General's remarks. Is there anything we should know that CCFI is not doing in this regard that causes concern for ACOA? If so, we're not aware of them. In fact, I understand that CCFI has been audited on numerous occasions, and it's been said that they've met all of those third party delivery requirements—and if not met, they've exceeded them.
On those two points, Rick, if you could enlighten our committee, that would be great.
By the way, thanks for coming on such short notice. I appreciate it.
I'll deal with the second question first, because I'm not sure of the exact point of the first question.
Our relationship with CCFI in terms of accountability and that sort of thing would be a client-partner relationship. We get regular reports, probably quarterly, updating us on the activities of CCFI, and then at the end of each year we get all of the financial statements prepared by Ernst & Young. I think that's their personal auditor right now.
We've found the financial aspects of CCFI's activities to be quite good; they're quite straight, and there's no reason for worrying or questioning there
Does that answer the question?
:
One of the issues around third party delivery would also have to do with whether the organization conducting the third party delivery is actually undertaking things within their mandate. Is CCFI doing things that ACOA would do, if ACOA were actually doing them?
Some of the things CCFI does, or some of the projects they would be involved with or fund, are not things ACOA would normally do. Some examples of that might be development work in the fishery, or experimental fisheries, and that kind of thing. That would be more the mandate and in the purview of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, I guess.
But for the most part, the financing and the records, and all of that, of the CCFI, to the degree possible, seem to be fine.
:
Okay. Let me elaborate, then, on my first question. In fairness, it may not be in your purview, or it is more of a cross-governmental policy issue or debate.
You said that basically there's an established, well-oiled network within Atlantic Canada, specifically in the university system, to be able to transfer technology from the environment of academia into the private sector, which I don't disagree with. There are some very good institutions that have developed out there. The question is whether or not they're completely good enough.
I remarked that the president of the University of Calgary said that this is a Canadian issue: we're not very good at transferring technology from the academic environment to the private sector. That's where we fail, not on the intellectual side but on the intellectual transfer side, in getting that process out into commercial application.
ACOA does fund other organizations, like Springboard Atlantic. Are we to read from this that maybe this is going to stop, that because individual institutions have mechanisms in place to be able to outreach their expertise, their R and D capacity within the university...? I know that Dalhousie has an outreach office, Memorial has one, and Saint Mary's has one. Pretty well every university has an outreach office. Because that is the case, should Springboard Atlantic expect to shut down soon?
If not, what exactly is it about CCFI and the fishing industry such that the fishing industry has this so right that they don't need a go-between to get innovation, research, and development out of the university and college environment and into the private sector? How have they achieved this? Could we use this as a model for the world?
My proposition is that we're still lacking in that regard and that an organization like CCFI is still valuable. I think Springboard Atlantic is still valuable, and other initiatives that ACOA might want to fund outside of existing networks and mechanisms are still valuable.
Maybe you could comment specifically on CCFI.
:
Since ACOA began, or over the course of our activities, one of the approaches we have taken in working with industries, industry associations, or groups within industries has been to identify particular initiatives--and usually they would identify them--where, if the industry were able to cause that to happen, it would be a good thing for the industry and everybody would benefit.
ACOA's approach has always been to provide seed capital or upfront capital, to provide money to get organizations through the early stages of their start-up, so that the good work they intend to do or hope to do can be recognized by those who are benefiting from it. Over time, then, those who are directly benefiting from it--and also if government departments with a specific mandate were able to benefit from it--would take on more of the cost of undertaking the activity.
There has always been a requirement toward a sustainability model, or else it becomes something the government has to do forever, and if that's the case, then it probably should be a government-owned structure as opposed to a third party structure. But again, I think the point is that when ACOA gets involved in something, whether it's the tourism association or something in the fishery, generally you do it for a while, but you hand it over to the industry once the industry has seen the value in undertaking it.
:
I think there were three questions there.
Hon. Gerry Byrne: Could be.
Mr. Richard Comerford: Is the door closed? I guess my answer to that would be yes. Minister MacKay and Minister Ashfield have written CCFI and advised them that ACOA would not be funding the CCFI further.
The other questions, I guess, concerned leverage and sustainability. With respect to the sustainability, there are two categories of money the CCFI uses. One is operating costs, which are the salaries, rent, travel, etc. for staff. The other is program activity.
Until recently, ACOA's money provided for both categories of funding and was generally $1.5 million in total, with $.5 million for operating and $1 million for research and development.
The question was...?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I see that you are being generous with regard to time allocation today. So, that means you will do so fairly, no doubt, and consequently, I will be able to speak for a little bit longer.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Raynald Blais: Good day. First, I want to speak to the committee members. I will have to leave you shortly after noon. I am giving an interview on the seal hunt. You know that today is a sad day, almost a day of mourning, because the European Parliament has decided, by a landslide, to vote in favour of banning seal products. For my part, the fight will continue, a fight for truth and respect for our traditions, particularly in the Magdalen Islands.
Furthermore, I also intend to talk about the possibility of having an emergency debate on this matter this evening, and we will see. However, I would like to stress that there is no doubt that we will have to look again at the issue of the seal hunt. I don't know how we will be able to do so. I hope that it will happen next Thursday.
Good day. I heard people from the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation. Today, I am listening to you. I have clearly understood the message from the centre for innovation, but I am having a little difficulty understand yours. You are going to help me over the next few minutes better understand you.
Please tell me if I am right or wrong. It seems that there is a certain philosophy that a research and development agency, in order to be able to exist for many years, must ultimately rely on private sector funding so that the government, at some point, can stop funding that agency. It shouldn't be like that. I think that the government or your agency can approve funding on an annual, two-year, three-year, or five-year basis, with progress reports, and so on. And if various facts mean that we are not satisfied with the work done, the funding can be stopped.
I have always understood that research and development remains the poor parent of the private sector, if I might say so. The private sector will invest if it benefits it to do so, if it wants to make more money. I am thinking, in particular, of pharmaceutical products. Hundreds of millions of dollars are invested in research and development, but for a target market.
In the fishing industry, we are trying to understand what is happening underneath the surface of the water, that which we cannot see. In my opinion, we are just starting to do a bit of research and development in that sector. We should remember that, even with regard to cod, an area we are extremely familiar with, we still don't know today the chain of events that can scientifically explain what has happened with regard to cod stocks. This kind of research and development is extremely difficult and takes an extremely long time, in my opinion.
I'd like to give you the opportunity to tell me your philosophy, how you see things regarding research and development organizations coming to see you and whom, at some point, you are turning away; they are turned away because they haven't made the necessary efforts to get private funding, and you are cutting their funding.
I get the impression that there are all kinds of ways in which you could maintain the same control over the funding that you grant to such agencies. However, it's essential to understand that the work they do, in the area of research and development, is long-term, whether we want it to be or not. With regard to fisheries, I get the impression that this could mean that a centre, such as the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation, would not and will not be able to go and get private sector funding to make up for the shortfall.
:
The requirement for a sustainability plan was placed in the last letter of offer or the last contract we had with them. Prior to this, about three years prior.... Again, this issue of becoming sustainable, and ACOA's ability to carry on and do this forever, has been an issue for about eight or ten years.
Based on discussions we had with them back about five years ago, they hired a consultant to do, I guess, a report on the options or the alternatives to their organization's structure. After looking at all the options, they came back and said that they liked what they had. They liked the status quo.
When they came back with that, we told them then that this was just not practical. It was not a way of continuing to carry on business, but it seemed to be that they'd looked at some other options and inevitably came back to ACOA for pretty much the full measure of their funding requirements. The term “sustainability plan”, to me, would almost by definition imply that if somebody tells you to become sustainable, you're not expecting them to come back and say, “Give me some money, and I'll be sustainable.” That is the way we looked upon it.
We had certainly communicated that to the Marine Institute or the university. We had communicated it to the board members, or the chairman of the board, and to Mr. Bonnell on a number of occasions.
:
Thank you again for coming.
Let me first reiterate what my colleague Mr. Byrne said earlier. In times of economic uncertainty, innovation's going to be the key that allows us Canadians to compete in every sector--fisheries and otherwise--and I think everyone in the room agrees with that.
I have three parts leading to a question. The first thing, Mr. Comerford, is that it has been said widely in the discussion that the notice was at least ambiguous, that it was left open to interpretation whether funding was going to be cut off and whether there was ever an opportunity to continue. If the institute came up with some alternative funding, perhaps there was at least a door open. That's the impression that was certainly left with CCFI's chairman, according to his testimony.
The second part of this question I'm leading to is, what flexibility is there in ACOA's programs to change somewhat the terms that might allow the door to be open?
The third part of the question is this. Is there a possibility of a new deadline with new terms that would say to CCFI, if you can come to us within a certain period presenting conditions that would be acceptable to ACOA, that would promote innovation, and that would help us compete better internationally, then here's your last chance? Is that even a possibility?
:
Regarding the flexibility in our programming, there are a couple of things here. We have to deal with the programs that we have and budgets that we guess at. When we look at a program, like any department, it comes with terms and conditions as set out by Treasury Board. They turn into rules and guidelines, and we basically try to tie what the funding was intended for to how the funding gets spent.
It's probably too detailed for me to get into each our programs, but we clearly evaluated the potential for funding for CCFI against our three main tranches of programs and found that it was not a good fit. In the case of the Atlantic Innovation Fund, other projects that were closer to the criteria were beating CCFI, and when they were measured up against each other, it didn't measure up. In the case of our other programs, for example with our community programs, the money has to be spent in the community that's being affected. We just introduced a new Community Adjustment Fund, but that money has to be spent in the communities being affected.
For the most part, the money spent by the CCFI is spent within the institutions that are in communities like Halifax or St John's.
I'm just scrolling through our programs now in terms of what the issues would be with CCFI and those.
Then there are the other programs, the ones that we use to support businesses, to help them to expand and modernize and that sort of thing. Right now the demand that has been placed on those programs as a result of the general shrinking in credit and that kind of thing has really limited our ability to take money for that purpose and divert it to this purpose.
In terms of whether we have the flexibility, we might have it in the rules, but we don't have the budget or we have other priorities or something like that.
I think Canadians, whether they live in the Gaspé, the Magdalen Islands, the north shore of P.E.I., or the northeast coast of Newfoundland on the northern peninsula, are looking for leadership from their parliamentarians and assurance that they understand the issue.
The term “beater” is used in the Fisheries Act. It's an actual term in the definitions in the Fisheries Act describing an age cohort. It's used by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in our licence regulations.
No, I don't think soft-selling this issue is really what our sealers and our sealing communities want to hear. They want to hear that their parliamentarians understand the industry, understand the issue, are prepared to confront it head-on with fact, are not afraid to use language that's actually used and incorporated into the government's own documentation, the regulations, and the general description of the industry. They're looking to see whether we're prepared to endorse the rhetoric and the sloppy language of the animal activists or whether we're going to stand firm and tall with our sealers and our sealing communities to say this is wrong. These negative campaigns based on misinformation are all about misinformation. If the government itself uses the term “beater”, if fisheries officers use the term “beater”, what's next? Are we going to amend my motion by saying we want to hug baby seals, because baby seals are really what we are trying to protect? Why don't we incorporate “baby seals” into the motion? Exactly. Come on.
This is exactly how the hunt is prosecuted. It's done in a very humane, sustainable, and ethical way. It describes the industry, and having parliamentarians not shy away from that language, having parliamentarians not shy away from that fact, does more good for this industry. And that's exactly what our sealers want to hear: that we are not held captive to the false and misleading language of those who promote that Canada should stop killing baby seals.
I'm not going to put “baby seals” into my motion. I'm not going to take out the other language that is completely appropriate as well, because that's exactly how this industry is conducted. Having 12 parliamentarians stand up and say for the record that this is exactly what we stand for and that what has occurred in the past, what is occurring today, and what will occur in the future is solid, is humane, is ethical, is responsible, is sustainable, that's the way we need to go. If the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans won't even adopt that, well, if the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and its members slink away from that, put in an amendment that we cuddle baby seals, while you're at it.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think that this is an extremely important motion and that it needs to be passed today. It is truly very important for us to support sealers. The motion shouldn't be defeated because of a word, particularly since the word is quite acceptable in French. The problem only exists in the English version, not in the French.
I suggest that in the English, we put the French word in quotation marks. Consequently, we would not be using the word “beater”, only the French word, especially as most sealers are francophone. This would thereby respect Mr. Byrne and Mr. Kamp's ideas. Everybody would be happy.
I repeat, Mr. Chair, that it is important in my opinion for us to adopt this motion today with or without that word, since it must be adopted. It's important to our sealers. Without a seal hunt, there would be so many seals that we wouldn't know what to do with them anymore. It's essential, at a time when the meat could be used, which is wonderful and which is currently being lost.
This motion needs to pass. If Mr. Temp and Mr. Byrne agree, we could put the French word in the English text. The French word is quite acceptable, “brasseur” is not beater.
This is not a new situation. For many years, various Europeans have been making representations that, more often than not, are misleading. We have asked for expert opinions to ensure that the seals were being killed in a humane way and were not suffering too much. Obviously, when anything is killed...
Aside from a minor change in the hunt itself, all the arguments brought before the European Union referred to that situation and to these objections, and it was presented in that way. “Softening” a representation often signifies our backing down, a sense of guilt. I am putting the quotation marks because I am not sure that this is really a softer stance. However, we should not feel guilty about what has been done to us. We should not have to justify ourselves before our own citizens, who agree with us.
The motion being presented seeks to make known internationally that we intend to maintain our position and defend it. Furthermore, mention has been made of the fact that we want to file an appeal before the WTO and we are not alone: others want to intervene with us. To that end, we must maintain the attitude we have always had and continue to say that we are right in what we are doing and that it is acceptable. It is by demonstrating that we are sure that we are right that we will maintain our strength in international circles.
I am not directly opposed to Randy's motion, I think it is fine. I was already aware of the motion and I will continue to support it as it was originally introduced.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have to say that I'm pretty disappointed with where I see this particular issue going.
With all due respect, Mr. Kamp, the words you've put around this are fine, and I think all of us agree with the words you have put there, because it is very important that we convey this message.
However, I don't understand, Mr. Chair, how you could allow a motion like this to substantially change what's before the committee. You've killed four lines of this motion explaining the seal hunt and its approved killing method, so I don't know why you won't take a little friendly amendment here to move your words, which you've said, down to the bottom, and furthermore, to add the words that you've added, because the words you had there are very important as well.
But to take away a motion that was put forward by my colleague here is ridiculous. It's ridiculous that you would do that for partisan reasons.
You look, you look, and you look at the word “harvest” and you look at the word “hunt”. These are all terms that we use in the seal industry. Depending on where you go, they like you to use the word “hunt” versus “harvest”. It's the way things happen on the ice.
There's the word “beater” as well. The seals are referred to this way because of the coat. There's actually that name for it: the raggedy-jacket. It's a white fur when they're losing it, and once they lose this jacket, that's the term they use. It's used for younger seals. It's the way we've been describing seals all along, and we shouldn't be afraid to tell it like it is. I don't understand why we want to soft-sell this.
Listen, we have to be honest and upfront with people. For too long now, we've been soft-selling this, and it has not gotten us anywhere in the world. Let's be honest and upfront with each other.
I like your words, I think they're great, but I think they can be added after the last semi-colon there. Furthermore, the committee agrees that we need to do this. I don't understand why you're trying to bring a soft sell to this.
:
I just wanted to make this point. I see my Liberal colleagues trying to spin this as some type of partisan thing. It's simply not. On the wording, we're going to come to some kind of agreement. To look for disagreement where there's agreement is actually the partisan action.
The wording as it stands now would say that “the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans fully endorses the harp seal hunt”, which is a statement that hasn't changed, “and the committee strongly condemns the ban of Canadian seal products by the European Union despite overwhelming evidence in support of its sustainability”, which is a word that was previously used, “humaneness”, which is a word that was previously in the motion, “and value to thousands of coastal Canadians”, which is a new element that wasn't added in the previous motion.
I think maybe we're trying to look for disagreement where we actually have agreement. If you want to go back to the previous language, as far as I'm concerned I don't have a problem with it. If we simply want, as gentlemen around this table, to decide that we're going to have a working solution whereby we can keep the contents, satisfy the members on the other side of the table, and add in the element concerning the European Union's vote, I think that if we approach this from a more cordial perspective, we'll probably get the result we're looking for.
:
Just let me catch up to myself here.
On the motion itself, we're going to call a vote. This will be a recorded vote, so I will ask the clerk at this time to conduct the recorded vote.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)
The Chair: The committee unanimously approves the motion. I will direct the clerk, as outlined in the motion, to make the results of the recorded vote immediately available to the public through the media. The advisories will be prepared by her and distributed throughout Canada.
There is one more point of business before we adjourn. Mr. Blais has requested that on Thursday, because of the urgency of this issue, we ask the minister and/or officials from DFO to come in and to brief this committee on the events surrounding the ban of the seal products by the European Union.
Basically, I'm letting the committee know. Is it the wish of the committee to proceed? Thank you.