Evidence of meeting #49 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was vessels.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Larry Murray  Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
David Bevan  Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
George Da Pont  Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard
Cal Hegge  Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources and Corporate Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), we are dealing with the main estimates for 2007-08, votes 1, 5, and 10, under Fisheries and Oceans, referred to the committee on February 27.

I would like to welcome Minister Hearn to the committee meeting.

We appreciate that the minister and his departmental officials took the time to appear. The officials are Larry Murray, Deputy Minister; George Da Pont, Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard; David Bevan, Assistant Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture Management; and Cal Hegge, Assistant Deputy Minister of Human Resources and Corporate Services.

Welcome.

We had originally planned for an hour, and it was our intent to then go in camera to finish our seal harvest report. The minister told us that he can be here for an hour and a half, so I will try to keep everyone tight on their times. If you don't force me to cut you off, I won't have to.

Thank you very much.

Would the minister please make his opening statement?

April 24th, 2007 / 11:10 a.m.

St. John's South—Mount Pearl Newfoundland & Labrador

Conservative

Loyola Hearn ConservativeMinister of Fisheries and Oceans

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Again, it's a pleasure to be here. You've already introduced the people with me. We also have some other officials from the department, in the event there are specific technical questions to which you would like answers. We'll try to make sure we can cover all the bases for you.

Since we met last November, our government has made further strides on behalf of Canada's fishers. I'm proud to highlight some of these achievements before taking your questions.

Let me start with this year's budget. We announced a little more than $581 million for initiatives related to DFO and the health of our oceans. Of that, the largest single investment was in the Canadian Coast Guard. It will receive $324 million over 10 years to buy, operate, and maintain six new vessels. This funding brings our government's commitment to coast guard fleet renewal to $750 million so far.

What this means in total is that four new offshore research vessels and twelve new midshore patrol boats will be on the water by 2014. The vessels will be deployed to their respective regions as they become available. I should add that all these boats will be built here in Canada.

Eight of the new midshore patrol vessels will be primarily for conservation and protection in the Maritimes, Quebec, and the Pacific. The other four are new additions to the fleet and will be used for maritime security in the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes region. The four offshore research vessels will be state-of-the-art. Three will be for fisheries science in the Pacific, maritime, and Newfoundland regions. The fourth will be for oceanographic science, based in the Maritimes.

Overall, five of the new vessels will be additions to the coast guard fleet and 11 will replace existing vessels nearing the end of their life expectancies. Plans are under way for a high-speed air cushion vehicle in Quebec for search and rescue.

In terms of fleet renewal, we're doing the right thing. We are adding and replacing resources according to where they are needed most. For example, I also announced a redeployment of two coast guard heavy icebreakers, the Terry Fox and the Louis S. St-Laurent, from the Maritimes to Newfoundland and Labrador. This measure will save Canadians about $10 million in additional infrastructure costs that would have been necessary to keep the vessels in Halifax Harbour. These icebreakers operate in the Arctic from June to November and in the gulf during the winter. There is more than enough wharfage in St. John's and Argentia, and both of these harbours are closer to the Arctic, which is their main service area. So there is no operational need to keep the icebreakers in the Maritimes. Building additional facilities there will be a waste of public money, something the Auditor General has already mentioned.

As you may have seen in the national news, the Terry Fox is in Newfoundland right now to free up some 90 vessels trapped in the ice. Clearly, the operational need is there for the vessels.

Canadian fishers also fared well in other areas of this year's budget, including $39 million for fishery science over two years and $20 million over two years for the Atlantic integrated commercial fisheries initiative. DFO has also received $30 million over two years of the $110 million devoted to implementing the Species at Risk Act, and $9 million of the $19 million for a new oceans initiative will also come our way over the next couple of years to help us deliver Canada's oceans action plan.

We increased the lifetime capital gains exemption to $750,000. Credit for this initiative can certainly go to the committee, and particularly the chair. This will help better rationalize the fishing industry by aiding fishers in retiring on their own terms.

I should point out that the main estimates you have seen tell only part of the story concerning funding to my department. I am tabling two decks that go into greater detail. One concerns the main estimates themselves, and the second updates our expected funding this year, including funding from the recent budget. Of course, challenges and operating pressures certainly remain, and as much as we'd like to, we simply can't do everything everyone asks for.

Let me add something else about another item of interest to the committee—the small craft harbours program. I am pleased to highlight that the $20 million in temporary funding, which the past government scheduled to sunset this year, will be permanently added to the budget. With that money and the additional $11 million provided to the program this year, the total program funding will be $96.8 million. This is good news, and it stabilizes the budget at last year's level, but I'm hoping to secure additional funding to maintain these harbours, which are so vital to our coastal communities.

In relation to fisheries renewal, over the past year I've spent a great deal of time talking to fishermen, provincial ministers, and other fishery stakeholders, and what emerged from these discussions and our own research was that Canada's fishery continues to face significant challenges.

With this in mind, I was pleased to recently announce some of the initiatives we're putting in place to better support the fishing industry. From a national perspective, we announced a new integrated approach to fisheries management that has come to be known as “oceans to plate”. This is an approach where we focus on getting the greatest value for fishermen and for all Canadians from that resource.

Much of the work that lies ahead involves restructuring and rationalizing different parts of the fisheries. Our capital gains tax exemption, which I mentioned earlier, will be crucial to enabling this to happen. Fishermen understand that restructuring and rationalization is necessary for the long-term viability of the industry. And we are looking at different market-based approaches to achieve this in various fisheries.

At the same time, fishermen want to ensure that after consolidation, after rationalization takes place, the licences are in the hands of independent fishermen. Given this, I have taken steps to strengthen the owner-operator and fleet separation policies for Atlantic Canada that help to ensure that the wealth, benefits, and control of the fishery remain in the hands of independent fishermen. So I'm ending a practice called “controlling trusts agreements”. Hopefully, this will, as this committee has dictated many times, clean up the fishery. I think these measures will go a long way toward helping fishermen run their own operations.

I also announced our intention to establish a fishery sustainability checklist for Canada's commercial fisheries that will be used to demonstrate to our markets and to others the sustainability of our fisheries. This will help Canadian fish and seafood to better compete on the world stage, as retailers and consumers are demanding more products that have been certified eco-friendly.

We're also pleased to announce a number of financial measures that will help put Canadian fishermen on a firmer footing.

We'll be reviewing licence fees across the country to make sure our approach is a fair one in light of rising costs to doing business in the fishery.

The Department of Human Resources and Social Development will be contributing half a million dollars toward the fishery skills and training strategy. The strategy will be organized by the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters and will help support our new oceans-to-plate approach within the industry.

For the Quebec fishery, I'm committed to bringing permanence and stability to sharing arrangements there by 2010. I have also committed to establishing geographic fleet shares in certain fisheries, which will provide further stability. As well, we are planning to conduct a viability study for the offshore northern shrimp industry.

We all know that shrimpers in New Brunswick and Quebec are seeking licence fee relief to help mitigate lower shrimp prices and increasing costs of things like fuel, which is having an impact in all parts of the industry. I can tell you that I'm keeping a close eye on the situation, and I should make it clear that shrimp licences will be part of the national fee review.

I'm also confident that other measures we're putting in place will provide a greater opportunity for fishers to manage their businesses more effectively.

In the spirit of self-determination for fishers, I'm pleased to move forward on several other measures under the federal-provincial fishing industry renewal initiative for Newfoundland and Labrador. These initiatives follow significant consultations with fishery stakeholders and much work on the part of the province and my own department.

To help the industry self-rationalize, we've removed a number of regulatory barriers. For example, we will allow fishers to combine fishing enterprises, and we've introduced a new class of vessel size—let people build bigger boats for safety and for sensible reasons. This will give core fishermen the flexibility to use the boat that best fits their needs. And we'll eliminate volume restrictions in the current vessel replacement policy. We will also help to restructure and rationalize the fisheries inshore shrimp fleet by converting temporary inshore licences to regular ones.

Taken together, I believe these investments and initiatives will give Canada's fishers more flexibility and choice in running their businesses. They will help to make the industry more viable and sustainable for those who rely on it today and in the future.

Let me say a brief word on the international front. This past fall Canada was instrumental in helping NAFO reform itself into a more effective fisheries management organization. This year's season is well under way, and I'm very proud of the fact that there hasn't been one citation issued to boats for overfishing or misreporting the catch. They can no longer afford to do so, thanks to the tough sanctions we helped realize. It is real progress.

What lies ahead? The main priority is Bill C-45. Many of the changes it proposes to the Fisheries Act will help support our goal of improving the economic viability of Canada's fishery, and it will help to make fisheries management in Canada more inclusive, accountable, and transparent.

Right now there's a hoist amendment before the House that will effectively kill the bill. It would not buy more time for further consultation, as has been suggested. It takes the bill out of commission completely.

We've been accused of not consulting enough on the bill, when extensive consultations on a renewed Fisheries Act have in fact been ongoing in the department for years. This includes hundreds of fisheries consultations and information sessions from coast to coast. Let me add that the text of the bill has been publicly available since December 13.

Our goal will be to get the bill into committee so that members can review it clause by clause to ensure it will provide the modern legislative framework we need for a sustainable fishery well into the century. Nothing is ever so good that it can't be improved. I'm willing to work with anyone who cares as much about the fishery as I do to improve that key piece of legislation. If we can't have the best piece of legislation, it's nobody's fault but our own.

I again thank the committee for inviting me here today, and I'd certainly be pleased to take your questions.

I hope we've impressed upon you what the government is doing and that we're doing it in the best interests of Canadians. As I've always said, you can do so little alone, but through working with the members of the committee and others interested in the industry, we can do a lot.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy

Thank you, Minister. We appreciate that you appeared at committee.

We'll go to our first questioner, who will be Mr. Cuzner. He's splitting his time with Mr. Russell.

I urge all committee members to be judicious with their time. If you go over the time, you will be cut off. There's only an hour and a half with the minister, and everyone wants an opportunity to speak.

Mr. Cuzner.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

The warning will not be taken off my time, though—the 30-second warning.

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, for being with us today.

We're going to agree to disagree on the fact that fishermen were consulted on the Fisheries Act. I've certainly dealt with fishermen on many issues during my time here as a member of Parliament. But as to any kind of specific consultation, they feel left out of the process.

There are three questions, if I can go directly to the three questions.

This is something that you and I had spoken about when you were in opposition. On the centralization program for small craft harbours, we had talked about the great number of harbours that had been divested, and they continue to be functioning commercial harbours. Do you think there's any possibility that at some point there would be moneys available for these divested harbours?

I'll let you answer that one first, Mr. Minister.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Loyola Hearn Conservative St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

To Mr. Cuzner, let me just make a brief comment on consultation. I appreciate where you're coming from, but you know what it's like. If you had to go out and consult with every fisherman from coast to coast—it's not going to happen, it never did, and only for the attention brought to the act, it wouldn't be an issue now. They've had groups or agencies provide a fair amount of input, and they elect you and me to make sure they're represented in the House.

In relation to harbours, I agree with you. It's a changing fishery, and one of the things we've always said is not only harbours that have been divested—Mr. Russell, for instance, has raised the issue—and I should mention, Mr. Chair, these people lining up to get a few minutes with the minister. Every single day, somebody is sitting next to me in the House having a chat. Mr. Blais has had more time than the committee.

Anyway, there is a changing fishery, and some harbours that were not solely owned small craft harbours are more important to fishermen today, perhaps, than some that we own and that are functioning. We are aware of that and are looking at it. We haven't closed the door on it at all.

The only concern we have, of course, is, with so many harbours and wharves across the country and with escalating costs, trying to keep what we have going. But again, priorities are priorities, and we have ways of helping out in certain areas.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

Again, I know the focus is the functioning harbours now, but if I could suggest to the minister, those that are still there that have been divested...if we could go back, I think there have probably been a couple of harbours that have been divested that should still be in the mix. I'm even getting that from DFO officials on the ground.

Secondly, on the fishing vessel safety regulations on stability, do we see any additional cost going back to the fishers for the new regulations that will be put in place?

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Loyola Hearn Conservative St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

I'm not reading you. Do we see any costs going back to the—?

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

Going back to the fishers. Do we see additional costs going back to the fishers for making sure that stability regulations are—

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Loyola Hearn Conservative St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Is there some kind of relief or something for them?

The stability, of course, and any costs involved come under the Department of Transport. I'm not aware of any program to offset these costs, not directly. The deputy might have a more careful answer on that for you.

11:25 a.m.

Larry Murray Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

David Bevan might as well.

One interesting thing that came out of the consultations in Newfoundland was a focus on operational health and safety, and that part of the professionalization thing was to give fishers some money for some of this.

I would say, again, no doors are closed on that, and in the whole stability thing, certainly there has been a concern. We're working closely with the Department of Transport. We have an MOU, but I can't say specifically that there has been a sum of money. But certainly it was really interesting, in the 40 consultations around Newfoundland, that this wasn't one of the issues that we thought we would hear about. We did hear—

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

Cost wasn't?

11:25 a.m.

Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Larry Murray

Well, safety and that kind of stuff.

I think we'll have to work with the Department of Transport and the industry and figure it out, quite frankly, because I think everybody agrees that it is an area that requires attention.

I don't know, David, whether there is anything more specific at this point.

11:25 a.m.

David Bevan Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

I'd just add that Transport Canada, of course, is involved in negotiations and consultations with various stakeholders, and they have no intention, as I understand it, to gazette the proposed regulations in the immediate future. They're continuing with the consultations, and that phase has not yet wrapped up. So I presume in those discussions they'll be hearing about costs and having consideration as to how to reduce them.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

Okay. Finally, I have just a quick question—

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy

Mr. Cuzner, in order to be fair with the time, your five minutes are up.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

Okay. Thank you.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy

Mr. Russell.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, Minister and witnesses.

Concerning the coast guard redeployment, there is a sentence in your submission that you moved the two vessels from, I guess, the Maritimes into the Newfoundland and Labrador region. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we shouldn't have more presence within our province or more presence from the coast guard within the country generally, but it says “both these harbours are a little closer to the Arctic—which is their main service area”.

About a year and a half ago, DFO had put in place, as I understand it, and was implementing a plan to station the coast guard in Labrador—it would have been the first time ever that the coast guard was stationed in Labrador—to carry out just the very type of work that is alluded to within your comments here.

What was the rationale for choosing St. John's and Argentia over, say, what was already in the works a year and a half ago, which was Goose Bay? There was a $96 million northern access initiative for Goose Bay, or Labrador generally, that was subsequently cancelled even though DFO seemed to have a rationale for it. Why now Argentia, for instance, over a presence in Labrador, which has many, many needs, from a hydrographic need to more mapping to Arctic sovereignty and all these types of things that are so vital not only to Labrador, to the province, but to the country generally?

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Loyola Hearn Conservative St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Thank you very much for the question.

The points he makes are actually ones we have made in relation to the need for a greater presence in the Arctic, a greater presence in Labrador.

The plans he talks about, however, were plans of the former government without any funding to back them up. It was just a commitment made during the election—as I guess we're all prone to do—with absolutely nothing there to back it up. They talked about revitalizing a coast guard boat. We are very conscious of—and in fact there are major discussions under way among ourselves and DND, etc., about a presence in the north. We're talking about sovereignty and security, which are very important issues.

In this case, with the infrastructure, we need to save money in order to be able to do things with small craft harbours, maintenance, etc. We do have facilities in St. John's and we do have facilities in Argentia, and in relation to the work these boats would do, these areas are more suitable than any others. It wasn't a matter of taking them out of Nova Scotia and moving them to Newfoundland for the sake of doing so; that wasn't the case at all. It wasn't a politically conceived plan. The records will show clearly this was not raised by the politicians on either side. It is a plan that the coast guard has been working on for a number of years, and it makes all the sense in the world in relation to the new reconfiguration of the coast guard.

So I guess it's part of a long-term plan. It's what makes sense now in doing the right thing and saving as much as money as we can for the Canadian public.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL

Just to follow up on that, I certainly don't believe you've put the right spin on it, Mr. Minister. I mean, the northern access initiative was real. It was developed by the coast guard, developed by DFO, and they were even in the early implementation phase of moving that plan forward. Representatives from the coast guard were there for the announcement. It wasn't just an election piece or a platform piece. Officials who are still with the department saw a need and said they were going to put something in Goose Bay or Labrador, a plan that has been on the books, as I understand it, for some time.

So why Argentia over a presence in Labrador, which is vitally needed?

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Loyola Hearn Conservative St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Well, again, Mr. Chair, it's quite clear you can put any spin on it you want. There was absolutely no funding put in place to carry out that initiative. Several of the initiatives we have undertaken were plans made in the past, with money identified and work done. When you have a dream and you don't put up any dollars for it, it doesn't hold much water.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL

You cancelled it.

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Loyola Hearn Conservative St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Under the present circumstances, with the facilities we have, rather than go in and try to recreate infrastructure—it's just as easy to spend money in Nova Scotia as it is to spend it in Goose Bay or anywhere else—it makes sense under the coast guard plan to put the boats where we're putting them.

Mr. Da Pont may want to add to that.

But penny-wise and pound foolish sometimes is not sensible. We've done too much of that in the past. So we're trying to get the best bang we can for the bucks we have.

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy

Be very quick, because it's time for Mr. Blais.

11:30 a.m.

Commissioner George Da Pont Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard

The main consideration, had we kept the vessels in the Halifax-Dartmouth area, was that we would have had to spend $10 million or more in wharf construction than would otherwise be the case. We wanted to move the vessels to a place that already had the available wharfs.

So if we had looked at other locations, such as Goose Bay, we would have had to have significant wharf construction. It would have been a completely different consideration.