Fisheries Committee on May 8th, 2007

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright]

I would like to add something. As you know, we have received funding for the International Polar Year involving climate change in the North, in the Arctic.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chairman?

I would like Ms. Kirby to provide me with an explanation. Within the Habitat Management Program, I am looking at the environmental process modernization plan and I do not understand annex 2. I know that there are specific programs depending upon the province, but are these commitments? What is the entire operating budget for all of the projects described for each of the provinces?

[Sue Kirby]

Annex 3 provides the overall budget. We can give you the breakdown by province. We can send that to the committee. I don't have it at my fingertips.

What is in annex 2 is only a part of the program.

This is a tool that was developed to cover the minimal risks. It is one part of the program, but we could, if you wish, provide you with the details of the budget.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I'm sorry, Mr. Asselin, you're out of time. We have to go to Mr. Stoffer.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Doubleday, this is with regard to my remarks about Mr. Featherstone's comment.

If you go through the concerns here, Mr. Featherstone said he was told that if they didn't come up with $200,000, there were going to be concerns. Ron MacDonald was told by DFO that if they didn't find a way to fund the science, there'd be an assessment done every three years that would lead to a much-reduced TAC. Other people, such as Geoff Gould, said they were told in a letter from the regional director general in B.C. regarding funding of their charters—which do assessments of the soft-shells—that DFO did not have enough funds but was interested in working with them in a joint agreement. They asked what that meant, and the matter died right there. The other lady who came before us talked about the dogfish.

Every single one of these people told us that they were told by people on the west coast that if they didn't come up with money for science, either their TAC was going to be reduced or they were not going to be able to fish. Either they're telling us the truth or they've been misleading this committee.

You don't necessarily have to answer it now, because Mr. Murray indicated he would respond to that later. But I would sure love to have a clear, direct answer to what they're saying, because it sounds as if.... Mr. MacDonald said it himself, that he didn't know what the determination of blackmail was, but he thought this was rather close to it. That's what he said to us in the committee.

So these are pretty serious allegations, and we'll only take them as allegations right now, until you get an opportunity to respond. But my question for you, sir, is about your comment that fishers who benefit from access to public resources should contribute to the costs of managing them. Now, I thought that's what you paid a licence for, and that this money was used to do that.

As you're aware, the B.C. terms of union state very clearly that the federal government would assume or defray all costs to protect and encourage the fishery. That's when B.C. joined in 1871. This one says that fishermen should contribute to the costs, whereas the terms of union for B.C. said it should be a federal responsibility.

I'm wondering if you could somehow square that circle for me.

[Dr. William Doubleday]

Mr. Chairman, that's a very complicated question, and I don't know if I can really give a comprehensive answer.

With respect to the specific points raised by the witnesses last Thursday, we'll be happy to reply in writing with our perspective on what they said.

With respect to Canada versus B.C., I think that's how costs are shared between governments, rather than having any participation of the private sector in the conservation of the resource—and we're not talking about agreements with B.C. where they're contributing money.

I'm afraid I've lost some of the details in going through this, but I think we made it quite clear from the beginning that we feel shared stewardship is fundamental to effective fishery management. Very frequently, fishers receive significant benefits from the fishery beyond what one might assume if there's just a minimal conservation of the resource. We consider that when they're receiving substantial private benefits, they should also be making some contribution.

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

But isn't that what they pay their licence for?

[Dr. William Doubleday]

The licence is an access fee and it is intended to respond, to some extent, yes, to the value of access to that resource.

[Larry Murray]

If I could leap in, I think the last question is a difficult subject for everybody, including those in the industry. It's challenging in some of these discussions to figure out what somebody said and what somebody heard. I don't want to impugn anybody, and I know you're not either, so we'll answer those on paper.

But I think the last question is really at the heart of this issue. It's the issue of who pays for the fishery. We're engaging in a fundamental policy debate that happens to have been triggered by the Larocque decision, but maybe that policy debate should have been triggered or would have been triggered.

You know, part of the problem is that it's not all apples and apples either. Someone who holds an ITQ quota for sablefish on the west coast is in a different position entirely from somebody fishing in a now less than 39-foot boat in the inshore fishery off Newfoundland, so how do you square that? Our policy framework tries to come to grips with that, but do the 30 million Canadians owe the 48 lucky Canadians who have the sablefish quotas? Is it appropriate that everything gets paid there, the same as it might be for the inshore fishermen in Newfoundland?

I think that's the debate we need to have, and I think this committee needs to play a big role in it, whether it's around the contents of Bill C-45 or whether it's us out there talking to understandably unhappy fisherfolk from coast to coast to coast around this.

But it's a hell of a question, and we need to figure out if we're going to move forward with quota fisheries, which seem to be those where conservation happens. What does that mean, and what does it mean to have a quota, and what about the second generation of those quotas? Should I be sitting in my condo in Hawaii with my sablefish ITQ, leasing it out to someone else, and 30 million Canadians are not only giving me a deal on...?

We are launching a licence fee review as well, because as Mr. Stoffer said, that may be part of the answer here. It seems to be the answer in Iceland. I don't know, but we do need to have a look at this and we need to have the debate, and that question is at the heart of the debate, actually.

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

And that's why I'm opposed to ITQs.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I appreciate that, Mr. Murray; and thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

I'll try to get a quick question in here, if I can, before we go to Mr. Calkins.

I think part of the difficulty here—and this committee has heard it many times—is that there have been a lot of costs downloaded to the fishermen: the dockside monitoring, a lot of the disposition and divestiture of small craft harbours. They've assumed a number of costs they never assumed in the past, and at the same time, there seems to be a continual decrease in the science budget. That has happened in other industries as well, so it's not simply in the fishery. But somehow that's fundamental to the greater problem.

Maybe that's a governmental decision we have to decide: how much is government willing to pay for science, and what portion of it? But there's a real danger—and I hear it every time I talk to fishermen—in giving quota for science, because you end up always producing winners and losers in the fishery.

I'm not pretending to have the answer either. I just make that comment. And I'm not asking for an answer. I don't think there is one.

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions are probably going to deal mostly with the environmental process modernization plans. So I'll just prepare Madam Kirby for that.

As I went through some of the documents that were prepared for today's briefing, I had some specific questions around that, but I'd just like to set a scenario for you. Let's just say that there's a little creek flowing through a small Alberta town, and in this creek there's a healthy population of stickleback, none of them ninespine, so we don't have to worry about the species at risk. There are a few willows around a road crossing where there's a culvert that was put in, say, 20 or 30 years ago. They need to expand the size of the road, and they need to come up with a suitable crossing.

As I'm going through this, I'm wondering. Obviously we have fish in the creek. It's a small creek. None of them are sport fish or fish that would be considered commercially viable or have any commercial value other than the effect that we've got one more tick on the biodiversity list of species that we have in our province.

The small community has about 2,000 people. They pay their property taxes to hire municipal administrators. Those municipal administrators are there to make sure things operate in accordance with the rules that surround them. One of those rules is that when you go to put a bridge or a culvert in across a body of water that has some fish in it, you have to make sure you protect the fishery's habitat. I think everybody understands that. That's obviously the role of DFO, and that's obviously something we need to look at and that needs to be taken into consideration.

But as I was looking at this practitioners guide, it came to dawn on me suddenly that there are some questions in here. What I'm looking for is just basically a streamlining of the process, and I know that's what the whole plan is. You streamline the processes so that when we have something like this going on, when a review has to take place, some common sense can prevail.

Common sense, to me, would tell me to just go in there and make as little impact as possible. If we have to, we can put a bit larger culvert in, or if we have to put a bridge in there right now, we can, as long as we don't disturb too much vegetation, as long as we don't damage the flow of water or restrict the flow of water or anything like that. Common sense would tell me that the sticklebacks are going to survive no matter what we do and that we should be able to move on with this.

But when I go through some of the documents that you have here on aquatic effects assessment and so on, chances are we're going to get into aquatic effects assessment. Would you agree with that, given the scenario that I painted for you? Or are we just basically going to have an operational statement and that would be it?

[Sue Kirby]

I think in most cases we're going to have an operational statement and that would be it. Culverts are tricky because they come in a lot of different sizes; they come in a lot of different contexts. But in the scenario you've painted, I think we're talking about an operational statement.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Who would decide that? Would that fall to?

[Sue Kirby]

We would provide that advice to the municipality when they contacted us.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Well, that's very good news, because in the scenario I painted I think we've had some difficulties in the past, and that's where I'm happy to see those changes.

[Sue Kirby]

In many cases, that's why we've designed the operational statements, because we're aware of the concerns that have been raised in the past. With this new approach, so long as the municipalities are following the operational statements properly, they don't need to come to us, and we would provide them with that advice.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

So what would have to change in the scenario I've just painted for you in order to get to an aquatic effects assessment, so we would actually get to the point where we would go through the pathways of effects analysis and assess mitigation and so on? How much more complicated would that get?

[Sue Kirby]

I think that's one I'd better provide you in writing, because it is complicated in terms of what exact scenario you'd want to be painting. So I will reply to that one in writing.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

No problem. I'm not trying to make a difficult situation here for you. I'm just trying to get my head wrapped around this so that when I do get calls on this--

[Sue Kirby]

Exactly. I understand.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

What I did notice is that on page 11 of this, “Assess Mitigation Measures”, you have this vegetation clearing diagram, and in there.... I'm just going to frame this in context. I have a zoology degree in fisheries and aquatic sciences, and I'm looking at this and I'm reading, “Proponents can use the PoE diagrams to determine for themselves where mitigation is required”. So that's obviously the municipal administrator; it could be in a small town. And then it says “the Practitioner”--who is the person working on behalf of DFO--“need only review the information”. I'm looking at this vegetation clearing diagram, and I'm thinking, solar input is okay. Well, I'm sure people understand that. But then I go over here to allochthonous inputs. I don't even know what an allochthonous input is, and I've got a zoology degree.

Are we making this more complicated?

[Sue Kirby]

The practitioners guide is intended for our staff.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I understand that.

[Sue Kirby]

The operational statements, which we can provide the committee, are written in much simpler language and intended for the municipal administrator, for example.