Fisheries Committee on May 8th, 2007

[Kevin Stringer]

Fishery is a complex world. In the area 12 crab, there are 27 organizations that represent groups of fishers. That's not including the processors. We now take an “ocean to plate” approach, which means we include processors in the discussions. We have sessions that have everybody at the table, or at which everybody is invited to the table. And whether or not we have all 27 groups saying yes, that's the way we're going to do it, at the end of the day we need to make a decision and make an arrangement with someone about how to do this. That's just one example.

There are other more obvious examples, perhaps, in fisheries, and let's say in the gulf generally. You have fleets from five provinces, you have inshore, you have midshore. In terms of working with “the” fishermen, in some places it works extraordinarily well. I'd use area 19 crab, which is off Cape Breton. There is a defined group of folks, they've organized themselves, and we have what is effectively a co-management arrangement there. We come up with what science we're going to do each year with them. It's a long-term plan, and we roll it out, and all that sort of stuff. It's difficult to do in most of the fisheries, where the fish don't respect our boundaries, so you have a complex situation.

But the objective is to work with the fisheries groups writ large and come up with arrangements. Those are summarized in the integrated fisheries management plan, which goes out to everybody.

But is there unanimous agreement among all the fishers and all the fisher groups? Not necessarily.

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

The comment was made in one of your panels here that fishers who benefit from access to public resources should contribute to costs. I think it's not an unreasonable assumption. I think what's created some problems here is the fact that it's happened suddenly, and any change is disquieting, to say the least.

I'll switch directions and go to the habitat management program and environmental process modernization plan. I was certainly glad to see that we're making a framework there for moving ahead in that realm. I noticed in your presentation that you discuss examples like vegetation clearing or maybe building bridges over a waterway as issues, if I can use those examples, but is there a plan for habitat enhancement envisioned as part of this, or is simply a plan for mitigating problems that may arise in the future from disturbing a habitat?

[Sue Kirby]

It's a plan for delivering on our legislative requirements to protect habitat under the current Fisheries Act and on our policy framework around no net loss, but it is really not an enhancement plan; it is really a protection plan.

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

Dealing with risk assessment was part of the discussion there. The issue came up earlier about the Fraser River. Risk assessment is probably the right word for it, because nothing is without risk. Risks always have to be evaluated in relation to other risks, I suppose, so we're looking at that Fraser River now and the very big concerns on the coast about the possibilities of flooding.

I flew out just the other day. The snowpack is very profound this year. Of course, you don't know if the officials are praying for it to stay cool so that it melts slowly, because with cooler weather we'll have more rain, which is problematic.

Anyway, in terms of gravel extraction, we know you're never going to extract gravel without some impact. Obviously there's going to be impact, but there has to be a plan, it seems to me, for removal. We have hundreds of millions of tonnes coming down every year, and if we don't do some extraction, we're going to have problems with flooding. It seems to me that we have to have a plan. We know there's a cooperative agreement with the province, but somehow we haven't been doing the extraction levels, and the committee has some understanding of how challenging it can be when you have people saying that it is disturbing .

In terms of no net loss, I don't know how you can apply a no-net-loss principle when you're extracting gravel. There has to be a way to recognize there is risk, but we have to deal with it.

[Sue Kirby]

Overall, in terms of gravel extraction, flood control really is the responsibility of the province. That's why we entered into the MOU with them; it was so we could be sure we were taking those factors into account. I think the deputy has provided a pretty full answer for how we're approaching it. We have said that for public safety reasons, we will have that take priority when it needs to happen.

The main reason gravel extraction has not taken place to the level that we would have been prepared to authorize in the last year or so has been economic; it hasn't been because of lack of authorizations on our part.

In terms of the no-net-loss policy, what we're looking at overall is whether we can compensate if we need to when there is damage to fish habitat.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you for that, Ms. Kirby.

We appreciate your questions there, Mr. Lunney.

Go ahead, Mr. Matthews.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to go back to my questioning on resource.

I want to say from the start that my questions are not meant to be critical of any arrangements with anybody. It's really for my own purposes; I'm trying to get an understanding.

Let's go back to those groundfish allocations. A number of years ago they sustained 10 processing plants. Nine of those processing plants were in the riding I now represent. There were approximately 6,000 people employed in those plants. Today, if we resolve the situation that we're talking about--and hopefully we do--you'd really only get a groundfish supply for one plant, which we hope will employ 600 people.

So I'm just trying to get an understanding of what's happened in the past and what the solution might be. In one of your previous answers you talked about 2,000 tonnes versus, say, 20,000 tonnes, but I guess the principle and the precedent are what I'm concerned about.

I want to go to Nunavut. There is some kind of management board there dealing with turbot, I believe. Can someone tell me what that arrangement is, how that stock is dealt with, from DFO to the board to the users?

[Kevin Stringer]

The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board is established under the Nunavut land claim. The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement established the NWMB in 1992-93. It is effectively our co-management partner in the land claim settlement area.

Now, that takes us just to the 12-mile limit. So with respect to turbot, with respect to northern shrimp, they're not a co-management partner. They would probably consider themselves a stakeholder. In any case, with respect to turbot and northern shrimp, which are the two major offshore fisheries that Nunavut has an interest in and Nunavut holds licences for, the NWMB is.... We work with them, but that's managed by the department.

With respect to fisheries within the 12-mile limit--and here we're talking about Arctic char and fisheries like that--they're effectively a co-management partner. In fact, there's a double-deal system where they can propose a figure and the minister can veto that, or the minister can propose something and they could veto it. But that's just for the settlement area.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

There are less than two minutes left, if somebody has another question.

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

Very quickly, on a local issue I brought up in the House yesterday, has there been any development in an ice compensation package? The precedent, I think, was 1991, where there was.... And I believe the minister brought it up. Has there been any headway on that? I respect the fact that you have to deal with other departments on it.

[Larry Murray]

The minister has been clear, and we're certainly looking at it. The ice situation in 1991 carried on well into June, as I understand it. It was an ice compensation package. We're engaged in trying to ensure that, should it be necessary, we can move it forward as quickly as possible.

I don't know, Kevin, whether you have any further insight.

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

How long does it take to find out if it's necessary?

[Larry Murray]

I think it would be a question of timing.

In 1991 we were also dealing with groundfish and the competitive fishery, and so on. We're currently dealing with crab and other things. The challenge with crab, though, will be soft-shell. Last year the fishermen went early and had a very successful season and they didn't bump into soft-shells.

So I think the issue around timing will probably be, how does the ice impact on the crab fishery and what does that look like in terms of timing to get started in time to avoid soft-shells?

[Dr. William Doubleday]

At this point, Mr. Chairman, we are determining how many people are affected, and how badly, so that we'll be in a position to go forward, if a decision is made to do so.

[Kevin Stringer]

If we can also add, we're monitoring the ice conditions really carefully. There have been some favourable winds, but what's happening now is that the ice is breaking up a bit. It's actually moving around and moving in from bay to bay. So it's affecting different bays than it was before. We are watching it and we are working with our colleagues at HRSDC.

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

You are assessing now how many people are affected. I might just throw in a little caveat. Are you looking at the people who made a claim for the year 2006 on EI as opposed to...? Basically there are people who just didn't start their winter claim on EI. I know I'm stepping into another territory here, but they haven't had their income since December.

[Dr. William Doubleday]

Mr. Chairman, I don't think I should go too far into detail. EI is a factor. Some fishermen are still on EI; some are not. That detail is part of the file.

[Larry Murray]

I don't know the answer to that. We'll have a look at it and get back to you on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

We'd appreciate that. Thank you.

Monsieur Asselin, s'il vous plaît.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have two questions. I will put them to you one after the other and you may answer them in the order you wish.

Will Bill C-45, further to the court's decision in the Larocque case, make something that seems illegal legal? What was said is that they were paying with goods that did not belong to them. Will Bill C-45 straighten out the situation? That is my first question.

Here is my second. You are aware that climate change is the issue of the day. Is there any concern on the part of Fisheries and Oceans Canada with regard to climate change? What is the Department's vision for the future as it pertains to the direct or indirect effects of these changes on species and their habitat?

[Dr. William Doubleday]

I will answer the first question.

If Bill C-45 survives in its current form, there will be mechanisms to make fishery management agreements involving fish allocations legal. It is up to Parliament. The Bill, as proposed, would allow for such agreements in the future.

I will now give the floor to Ms. Watson-Wright.

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright, Assistant Deputy Minister, Science Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has several climate change study programs. In the scientific sector, we have concerns as to the influence of the oceans on the climate and the effects of the climate on the oceans, on aquatic ecosystems and on resources. For example, we are predicting that there may no longer be any salmon in British Columbia before the end of the century. We foresee the salmon moving northward. We also have several committees, for example the Committee on Oceanography and Fisheries and, on the West Coast, the Task Force on Oceanography and Fisheries, that are studying, doing research work, making predictions and working with other departments, universities and other countries on climate change issues.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I have an additional question, once again relating to climate change. For how many months or years has this program been in place? Have you obtained any results to date in the area of research or science, or is this just all talk?

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright]

It is not exactly a program; these are projects. They have been in existence for several years. Given that the emphasis today is on climate change, we have undertaken to discuss with the regions, with all the scientific sectors as well as with the AMB, the Aquaculture Management Branch, the means to establish, within the Department, a greater number of projects focussing on climate change.

[Larry Murray]

Mr. Chairman, we could provide the committee with our list of projects in this area, along with more detailed information.