Fisheries Committee on May 8th, 2007

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I'd like to see those.

[Sue Kirby]

Yes, we can provide them.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Other than that, Mr. Chair, I'm very pleased to see that the department is moving in this direction.

[Larry Murray]

Can I say that we'd really be grateful for feedback, even unhappy feedback, because what we're trying to do is what we've indicated here. We will provide the committee with operational statements, but if members of the committee or colleagues are in a different world, with a particular municipality, or whatever, it would be really helpful for us to get feedback. We will look into it and figure out what's actually happening on the ground.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you for that, Mr. Murray.

The reason I was smiling is that when you said “unhappy feedback”, I thought, it's never a problem to get some. I can provide that.

Mr. Cuzner.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

I have five minutes, and I'm going to try to get three questions in here.

I will go to Mr. Doubleday, but I'll have you answer last, okay?

On the slide about groundwork for the future, you speak about FMAs and funding arrangements, including quota of fish that could be entered into. Could you explain to me why that's not contrary to the Larocque decision? You're going to be last.

Mr. Stringer, Mr. Bevan was here the other day and said that we continue to fund hatcheries on the west coast because of the commercial impact, yet we don't fund them on the east coast because it's more of a recreational fishery. We're not at odds with the principle that hatcheries have a positive impact on fisheries; it's just that what I got from it was the size--commercial versus recreational. So I want you to explain to me why we aren't continuing to fund hatcheries on the east coast.

I'd like to go to Ms. Kirby for my first one.

I appreciate the fact that you're going forward with environmental assessments, reviews, and so on. What I'm finding is that businesses and community groups, and whatever, that are going forward with projects are very willing to comply with whatever stipulations are being brought forward. When these things take place, it's the timing of getting information back from the various departments. I know that you do this; a lot of it is interdepartmental.

I've had a couple of groups that have missed opportunities because they couldn't get information back on habitat restoration, and what have you. In some of the cookie-cutter stuff, where we're going forward with infrastructure projects, there were timelines such that the federal secretariat would get back to them within 30 days on an answer, after all the information was gathered. I thought they worked well, and the group could work, knowing the timelines.

My question to you first, if you could answer it, is, do you anticipate that there will be timelines and measurements in whatever is going forward so that we can better serve community groups or businesses that want to advance projects, so that they know what timelines they have to deal with?

[Sue Kirby]

This has been most problematic where we are dealing with multiple departments. In the budget, there was a statement around a major projects management office. The intention in establishing that is very much to improve the coordination between the departments, as well as enhancing the capacity, in some cases, to be able to do some of the necessary assessments. Through that mechanism, the intention is to develop performance standards that go to timing.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

I think it's essential, and the groups will be satisfied knowing that there are benchmarks on the way out.

Mr. Stringer.

[Kevin Stringer]

The issue of salmon hatcheries on the east and west coasts has largely to do with history and how the fisheries have developed.

As David would have said last week, it is an order of magnitude issue as well, regarding the west coast commercial fisheries, first nations fisheries, SSE fisheries, as well as a major recreational fishery.

The recreational fishery is very significant on the east coast, and we've been very active there working with stakeholders. We have an Atlantic salmon advisory committee session coming up on May 25. We talked to the stakeholders about what the priorities are. Hatcheries are on that list, but they're not necessarily on the top of that list.

We have the gene banking facilities. We have the Atlantic salmon endowment fund, which was announced recently, that supports community stakeholder groups, community stewardship groups, and those types of things. We're working with stakeholders right now on a wild Atlantic salmon conservation policy, which we hope to be coming out with very soon.

So the focus on the east coast is largely about stewardship. ASEF reflected that. On the west coast, I would say it is broader. That's my sense.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

But I still sense from officials that there is no support in principle. They don't believe the hatcheries play a role in the status of the stocks. I get that and have been battling it now for six years, since the funding was pulled. I seem to be hitting a brick wall with it, but I would hope there's going to be some support there.

But what I'm looking for is that there is no philosophical divide between how we approach it on the west coast and on the east coast, no sense of “hatcheries good” on the west coast, “hatcheries bad” on the east coast.

[Kevin Stringer]

At the end of the day, it's the same folks making the decisions on the east and west coasts, but in different situations. If you look closely at those different situations.... As I say, it probably also has to do with history.

The fact is that on the west coast, and I suspect on the east coast...as you know, people who are involved in the Atlantic salmon fishery are probably the most passionate sort of stakeholders there are. On the west coast, there are thousands and thousands of volunteers involved with these hatcheries in the SEP program, the salmon enhancement program. It really is an entire industry of volunteers who are doing it. On the east coast, they've developed in a different way, and “community stewardship” communities exist; they have river keepers programs and all those types of things. That seems to be the way they've gone down that road.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you very much for that, Mr. Stringer.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Doubleday has a last answer, and he'll be brief.

[Dr. William Doubleday]

I'll be brief.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Be brief.

[Dr. William Doubleday]

Basically, the Federal Court decisions last year said that Parliament has not given you the authority to allocate fish to fund collaborative arrangements. The section in Bill C-45 that you're referring to, if it becomes law, would give us the parliamentary authorization to do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

That's brief. Thank you very much.

Monsieur Asselin.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to come back to annexes 2 and 3, because we ran out of time a little earlier.

Mention is made there of bridge maintenance, of dock construction, of dredging. There are commitments or areas of commitment for each of the provinces.

We are referred to annex 3 with regard to the budget. I presume that the numbers set out in the budget are expressed in millions of dollars.

[Sue Kirby]

Yes.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

That means that $57.8 million have been budgeted for 2007-08 for this shopping list, and for each of the provinces?

[Sue Kirby]

Not for the projects. We do not provide assistance for project infrastructure. The list, given in annex 2, pertains to the evaluation of the impacts and of the different projects. The budget does not cover the projects; it is targeted to habitat protection nation-wide. And you are right, these numbers are expressed in millions of dollars.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

The budget for 2006-07 is $53.5 million. When you come back, would it be possible for you to provide us with the actual expenditures? A budget of $53.5 million was, indeed, provided, but how much of that money was spent in 2006-07?

[Sue Kirby]

It is not exactly the same amount, but it is close. If it is your wish, we could provide that number to the committee.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Fine. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Go ahead, Monsieur Blais, for three minutes.