Fisheries Committee on April 24th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Da Pont.

Monsieur Blais, s'il vous plaît.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning to you, Mr. Minister, and to the senior officials as well.

Without further ado, I will go the issue of small crafts harbours. I will do so in order to better understand departmental policy. The $20 million in funding that was to sunset on March 31 was renewed in a certain way, but the figures show that the situation continues to deteriorate year after year because the amounts allocated to the small crafts harbours program are not sufficient.

Even if that brings us back to the same budget we had last year, it is really not enough to deal with the situation. At home, in Saint-Georges-de-Malbaie, in the Gaspé, the wharf had deteriorated to the point that the department built a protective fence around it for safety reasons. This wharf was still being used, by the lobster fishermen in particular. We can therefore say that it is essential. It is on the priority list for the next few years, but it always comes back to the same thing: there is not enough money.

Mr. Minister, do you not feel that this program needs serious action? If we make do with this year's top-up, the condition of small crafts harbours will continue to deteriorate.

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

I thank the member for his question. I'm not surprised that his first question was on small craft harbours at all. He was raising that issue when I was on the committee with him and ever since, because he represents a fishing area. I would say, Mr. Chair, it's an issue that any of us who represent fishing areas can raise quite logically. It was one I raised.

In fact, if you want to check Hansard, I was the one who raised and pushed the issue back when we got the $100 million put in originally. We have, as the member says, secured that on a permanent basis--not on a makeshift basis, but on a permanent basis. But on top of that we added another $11 million. It is still a drop in the bucket. Do we need more money? Absolutely. Are we looking for more money? Yes, we are. However, we're also looking for more money for highway construction, for education, for health care. So we're just one of several. There's never money enough to do everything we have to do.

The one thing about small craft harbours funding is it is allocated on a regional basis, and Quebec gets a certain percentage of that money. So it's not something that can be manipulated by a government or by a minister. I guess it could be, but it's not. And within the region, the small craft harbours division set their priorities based upon a number of factors: the amount of people using the wharf, the conditions of the wharf, etc.

Are we making any real headway? No, we're not. We're trying to breathe some air into the lungs of the situation we have. So, collectively, we'll just have to keep fighting to get more money, but we are battling, of course, as I say, other areas.

In relation to Saint-Georges itself, as a temporary measure, work has begun already to install floating wharves, because you expressed a concern about the people not being able to fish at the start of the season. Is that the answer? No, but it does get them on the water. And then we have to look at the budget in your region to see how soon work can be started on those wharves.

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

What you say does not surprise me much, but it worries me and it worries everyone to a degree. If a roof leaks and is not repaired, it will fall in at some point. That is the situation of small crafts harbours. It is as serious as that. Moreover, some people are suffering from it. Other groups, like the volunteer administrators of the port authorities, are at the end of their rope. They are exhausted, frustrated and discouraged. If we do not massively invest in small crafts harbours in the short term, the frustration and discouragement will make the situation irreparable.

It is for that reason that I am keeping up the pressure on this issue. Fear not, I will continue to harass you. I will even discuss it with cabinet ministers, if other people need to be convinced of the importance of this issue. You agree, but there is a difference between words and action. I say it again and I will repeat it to everyone, the degree of deterioration has reached such a point that the situation is threatening to become irreparable. The only short-term solution would be to put up safety fences around the wharfs that are in such poor condition that they pose a safety problem. It is in this regard that the situation risks becoming irreparable.

Are you aware of this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Very quickly, Mr. Minister.

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

Yes, I'm very much aware.

Again, I'll take you back to five years ago, when I was the one saying what you're saying. I came in with pictures of a government wharf that had been closed down, was not safe to use, that type of thing. With the help of the committee we made a major issue of it, and the government of the day put in place $100 million spread over five years. That sunsetted last year. What we have done is taken that money and added it to the permanent base. We also added another $11 million. So we are $31 million better off, base-wise, than we were five years ago when I started making those arguments.

However, you're right, with the money we have we cannot maintain what we have and add what we're being asked to do, create more wharves, etc. But every health care system, every educational system, every highways-interested person is saying the same thing. It's a matter of using what you have. If you're going to rob Peter to pay Paul in the fishery, where do you take money from our department—which area—to put it into small crafts harbours?

Certainly, we'd appreciate any help we can get in stressing the needs in your areas. We constantly do it ourselves. But it's a battle for the almighty dollar, and that's why, everywhere we can—The coast guard boats are a good example. We're trying to save every cent we can so we can spend money in the areas of greater need.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Minister Hearn.

Mr. Stoffer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Da Pont and Mr. Hearn, I'd like to offer my personal thanks to the crew of the coast guard who are helping out the trapped sealers on the northern and eastern parts of Newfoundland. I think they're doing a great job looking after everyone. It's amazing there's been no loss of life, which is fantastic.

Mr. Minister, you announced, and Mr. Da Pont verified, the fact that because of the possible $10 million worth of work needed to be done to the BIO wharves, the decision was made to move two vessels from the maritime region into Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Minister, we're in the game of politics. But there's an old saying that if it doesn't pass the smell test, there's something wrong.

The reality is that I spoke to the union, local DFO officials, and the coast guard, and nobody was advised this was happening. The City of Halifax was not advised. The province was not advised. You would think that if you were going to take about 130 full-time equivalent jobs out of a region, two vessels, and the infrastructure attached to it, the province and the municipality should have at least been advised this was coming.

I know that Mr. Williams, the Conservative Premier of Newfoundland, is raving very hard at the Conservatives right now. I can't help but think that one ship going to Mr. Manning's riding and one ship going to your own riding—doesn't it smack of grievous politics? Mr. MInister, I'm sure that if the situation were reversed and you were in the opposition, you would be saying the same thing. That's my concern.

I have a question that's not very often asked on the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. We're hearing different things through the media on dual marketing or keeping it the way it is. Could you expand on that?

My last question for you is this, because time is running short. I believe Mr. John Duncan, who was a former Conservative MP, is now your special advisor on the west coast. Was he advised prior to the tabling of Bill C-45 and consulted on the act before it was tabled on December 13, 2006?

Thank you, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, let me thank Mr. Stoffer for his comments about the coast guard. It's certainly well deserved. These people went through a hard time. But I guess they look at it as being not as hard as the fellow sitting by the side of his boat on an ice pan wondering if it'll break off. It's been a rough ride for everybody, but thank God no lives were lost. It looks as if the ice is loosening up a bit and we can get everybody safely back to port.

I don't argue with the member's perception of the coast guard and how it looks. But if I'm powerful enough or Mr. Manning is powerful enough in a ten-day period following the latest blow-up in Newfoundland to be able to take two icebreakers, do some analysis, and move them to the province, then we're pretty powerful. I can truthfully say, Mr. Chair, of course, we have people who think it's a very good idea to move them there, but I had absolutely no hand in this decision until it came to me. You can actually put anybody around this table under oath and ask them that question. We had a lot of other things to do when the idea came up and the paper was presented as part of a reorganization in relation to the new boats that are being built and moved around. There will be more boats going to the Maritimes than before, and they will be very well off. We're putting a lot of money into the Bedford Institute, and there will be a major consolidation around that area. That area is going to do very well.

In relation to the other two questions, I met with the Freshwater Fish Marketing board a few months ago. It was a very good meeting. We've appointed a new chair and a number of new people since I've been there. They weren't appointed politically, but verified searches were done and approved. There are some very good people involved.

We're not interfering whatsoever. I can have somebody elaborate on this a little more, but the Treasury Board initiated the study to see if there were other options they might want to pursue. It's in their hands. We're not interfering in it at all, nor are we going to go in there and tell them they have to do this, that, or the other thing. We can help them to lay out a couple of options they might want to look at in relation to certain species where it might be to their advantage, but we are not interfering with the Freshwater Fish Marketing board or how that relates whatsoever.

In relation to Mr. Duncan, Mr. Duncan does not work with me at all now. Mr. Duncan resigned from the department quite some time ago, when he decided to seek the nomination. It was actually before he even announced he would do that. He was around when we were working on the act, but I'm not sure if he was still with us when we tabled it. I really don't know. He was there when we were doing the preparatory work, and he certainly had some input into it.

We had a lot of people and some people with political knowledge to try to make sure the act contained the issues that it should, and we dealt with the issues we should deal with. I think we did so. There are some interpretations that need to be cleared up and some changes may have to be made in certain areas. We have no problem with that.

But we have to get on and do it. If we don't do it, it might be another 137 years before we'll do it again. That's my concern.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Minister Hearn.

Mr. Calkins, you're splitting your time with Mr. Lunney.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

That's correct, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you very much for appearing before the committee.

I have one question. Responsibility for the Navigable Waters Protection Act falls under Transport Canada, but the enforcement overlaps into Fisheries and Oceans as well. Under section 35 of the current Fisheries Act, any project that involves both fish habitat and a navigable waterway may be subject to review by both departments. The Navigable Waters Protection Act doesn't define “navigable” or “navigation”. It's interpreted so broadly that just about any small ditch or canal or something like that can be considered navigable.

Whenever municipalities in my constituency undertake work on a bridge or a culvert that involves a stream or a creek or even a gully, they have to obtain approval from Transport Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, and Alberta Environment.

In 2004, the county of Lacombe wrote a letter that said the Navigable Waters Protection Act hinders projects on small inland drainage waterways that are never used for navigation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Mr. Calkins, excuse me. You're going to have to slow down a bit. The interpreters have a difficult time keeping up when you're galloping.

Merci beaucoup.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

All right.

The county of Leduc, in 2005, wrote that the current interpretation of the act impacts municipal construction and maintenance works, substantially increasing costs and resulting in delays while documentation and approvals are obtained.

The town council of Millet wrote to your predecessor that dealing with one federal department can result in delays and exorbitant costs; complying with the requirements of two departments could further impede construction projects.

Mr. Minister, as you're aware, the construction in Alberta right now is booming. There's a heated-up economy. Every month that a project is delayed results in increased construction costs.

I'm basically posing this question to you, Mr. Minister. Our government is committed to reducing red tape. I'm wondering what plans your department has to simplify and expedite the approval process so these municipalities can get on with the work they need to do without having to be delayed and absorb those costs.

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

Thank you very much for the question. It's one that certainly has been raised by a lot of people who are perhaps more affected by navigable waterways and streams and rivers in relation to developments than they are to the fish and the industry. But it's just as big, and probably more frustrating, a problem. Several of your colleagues, on all sides of the House, have raised that.

When we came into the department, we were also bothered by this red tape.

We've all heard the story. I heard it the first year I came here, and I still hear it. I hear the same example about the farmer who is trying to put in a culvert and six guys with guns appear to stop him. He had never seen a trout in his life. Now, whether that's true or not, it still exists. There have been frustrating stories.

We are responsible for fish and fish habitat. We're not responsible for anything else. If there are no fish or fish habitat being destroyed, we are not affected. What we've done is taken the guys with guns, our protection officers, and moved them to areas where they're needed. We brought in habitat people and developed plans, where we try to be aware of the area as quickly as we can. One phone call and we'll sometimes be able to answer the question of whether we are involved: “No. It's not a fish stream. There's no fish habitat.”

If there is, then sometimes we have a problem. We're not only governed by our own act; we're also governed by the Species At Risk Act and the environmental acts. So sometimes our hands are tied there. We were accused of holding up construction of a bridge because an eagle had a nest in the uncompleted section. It wasn't us. We're not responsible for eagles, but we get the blame.

I'll have the deputy discuss some of the things we have done recently. We have taken this very, very seriously. We've tried to cut the red tape and bureaucracy to get down to the point where developments can occur. However, sometimes you get people pushing an issue where we do have responsibilities. We're governed by the law and we have no choice.

[Larry Murray]

I'll be really quick. We could come back, Mr. Chairman, with a briefing on this if you wanted us to, because it is an area of considerable concern. But we have put in place an environmental process modernization thing to address as much of that issue as we can. We now have an operational statement regime whereby if people file the operational statement, they don't have to go through all the processes. That deals, I hope, with a number of the issues of the nature you're talking about. As the minister said, we're now putting in place a monitoring regime, and as long as people abide by it, so be it.

The Navigable Waters Protection Act at Transport Canada, which used to be with us, moved by a government decision on December 12, 2003, but we're still trying to work closely with them. The government had money in the last budget. A deputy ministers task force in the last year or so has been trying to come to grips with how we bring this stuff together in a more coordinated way.

There's money in this budget to try to ensure that departments that are heavily into it, including us, get some capacity money, but also that there is a process put in place to better coordinate this stuff, so that folks aren't dealing with Transport Canada this week and then we show up next week saying you've had a nice try on the navigation stuff, but now you've got to worry about the fish stuff. So there is money in this budget to try to fix it.

But we'd be very happy, either for the individual or for the committee, to give a presentation at some point on what we're trying to do, and, more broadly, what the government is trying to do, because it is a very important issue and it is the subject of a lot of frustration. Some of it is historical and some of it is real now, and we're trying to make it better.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Murray. I think a report to the committee would be in order. That would be an excellent idea.

Mr. Lunney.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome the minister again. I'd also like to express kudos to the coast guard crew who are out there working with those sealers in those tough conditions. Canadians are certainly glad to see the support they're getting, and I express the opinion of other members here when I say we're glad there's been no loss of life in these difficult circumstances.

With regard to the coast guard, I certainly want to express my appreciation, the appreciation from those on the west coast, about the renewal program for coast guard fleet. I certainly think we have to invest in that infrastructure. We're glad to see that.

My question would come alongside the training of officers. I know in the MCTS crews that are monitoring the vessel traffic on the coast, for example, our officers are aging. They're very well-trained, but they have complicated jobs. There have been concerns about the investment in training manpower.

Could someone explain to us, Minister, or one of your officials, where we are at with the training program for MCTS officers and coast guard officers? Are we going to have the officers in place to man those new vessels as they come on board and for upgrading our staff as they come into retirement age at the MCTS centres?

[Commr George Da Pont]

Mr. Chairman, that is a very good question.

For me, that type of question, not just for the radio operators but for ships' officers, ships' crews, and other parts of our organization, is I think our biggest corporate risk, given our demographics. We are putting significant effort into doing the projections, planning for the future, and trying to put in place more accelerated training. Specifically for the radio operators, we are looking at improving the capacity at the coast guard college. Also, we're looking at investing in additional capacity to do training through the Internet, through e-learning as well. We're looking at all these things, and I would hope we would have some solid plans in place within a year.

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

Great. Thank you.

There's a second question. I'll pick up on the small craft harbours discussion we had already.

I'm certainly glad, Minister, you were able to secure that $20 million for the small craft harbours program, making that permanent funding, and with the extra $11 million bringing that up to $31 million, at least closer to the $35 million I think Mr. Murray had indicated we probably will need over a number of years to bring that program up to speed after being neglected for, I'm afraid, a lot of years by previous administrations.

My question would come under the divestiture program, because we still have a lot of harbours that have been working through that program and are caught in that time warp, where they're not used as they used to be, and a divestiture program under way—

Could you give us some indication of the funding levels—I know there was a fair bit required—and some of the challenges we're facing with harbours upgrading and environmental cleanup for some of these harbours prior to the divestiture?

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

I'll have one of the officials give you some idea of the figures.

The principle we base it on is that we do have—or we don't go out there intentionally shutting down harbours, even some of the ones that Mr. Cuzner mentioned. As the fishery changes, I myself know harbours that five years ago weren't used very much but that today are used a lot. Mr. Russell certainly has that example. We also have harbours that were used a lot but that now are not used. It's sometimes because people are going from small boats to bigger boats or vice versa, or because of the different species they're fishing in that area. Many people move to larger centres or better landing sites, etc.

So we always have harbours that are not being used. Sometimes they are big, rough, rugged harbours with huge wharves on the coast of Labrador or northeastern Newfoundland. Others might be a marina in a sheltered area in British Columbia or in Ontario.

About the latter, quite often people would love to have them, whether it be boat clubs or whether it be towns where they could develop a tourism business. Not too many come looking for a wharf in a rugged area of Labrador; you'd never be able to maintain it.

So we have all these challenges. We take a certain section of the budget each year for divestiture purposes. Sometimes, by being able to work with the local groups involved, we can get rid of a number of these harbours, but it's always with an investment from us. Very few people want to take it off our hands. It is costly, and we can't really take away from maintaining wharves that the fishermen are using to try to divest one. So we set aside a very small amount.

Do you want to elaborate a little bit on that, Cal?

[Cal Hegge, Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources and Corporate Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Sure.

Just quickly, we have about 350 harbours we would still like to divest. Those are recreational or low-activity harbours. We have spent about $65 million since the program review decision to divest of those harbours. To divest of the remaining 350 harbours—I think we presented this information to the committee before—we would need an infusion of about $82 million to advance the divestiture.

So as the minister said, and as we discussed this morning, with the pressures on the budget for small craft harbours, we're only able to spend about $1.5 million each year on those harbours that need to be divested.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you.

The next questioner is Mr. Simms, but I first have one very quick question for the minister.

This is with regard to the transfer of the two coast guard icebreakers, the Terry Fox and the St-Laurent, to Newfoundland in 2008 and 2009. As we're well aware, that policy was put in place back in 1997. My concern is not so much with the policy as it is with the jobs of the individuals working on those vessels. Many of them are Nova Scotians, and many of them live in South Shore—St. Margaret's, the riding I have the pleasure to represent. Others live in Ontario, or New Brunswick, or P.E.I.

I think there really does need to be some guarantee that those jobs will remain with the vessels. Some will be lost through attrition. Some people will naturally retire, and some may be transferred to other coast guard vessels. There does need to be some guarantee that those jobs will be secure.

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

There is, Mr. Chair: there isn't one job that will be lost in this process. In fact, we have a five-year period for transition. Consequently, we will protect the jobs. Also, as some of the older boats are phasing out, no boat leaves the service until the new one comes in. We actually have four or five more boats coming in than are going out.

So we'll be adding jobs to the coast guard rather than taking away.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you very much, Minister, for that answer.

Mr. Simms.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the minister and his staff for coming in.

First of all, I'd like to congratulate the efforts of the coast guard off the coasts of northeastern Newfoundland and Labrador. I'd also like to congratulate you on the recent announcement of vessel sizes. I did a press release a few months ago asking you to do it, and you did it. I won't take credit for it, since you were openly musing about it long before I came here, and I'll just say congratulations.

My first question is for you, Mr. Murray, on small craft harbours. You said in November of 2006 that the program of small craft harbours “would require the $96 million—in other words, not sunsetting the $20 million—and an additional $35 million”, for a total of approximately $130 million per year for that program.

Do you stand by that statement, sir? Yes or no?