Fisheries Committee on March 13th, 2008

[David Bevan]

We have to have obvious discussions with first nations relevant to food, social, and ceremonial. The projections for this year have already been made public through our forecasts for 2008. The specifics on how to manage the fishery are part of the ongoing discussions that lead up to the integrated fish management plans that are announced later in the spring, and then of course we have to see what actually comes back, but the projections certainly aren't for good runs. This is the low cycle, and the escapements in 2004 were low on that cycle. We've seen significant problems in the ocean environment, where the entire population seems to have been eliminated in 2005. The fish that were out there at that time are gone. So we'll have to see what happens this year.

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

Would those discussions also include our American counterparts as well? Would they be reducing their amounts as well?

[David Bevan]

They're obviously under the Pacific Salmon Treaty. That would have a bearing on their catches as well. If we don't get any, they are not going to be in a position to take fish not caught by Canadians under the Pacific Salmon Treaty.

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

Very good. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Mr. Allen.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thanks, Chair.

Thank you for being here today.

I have a few questions.

In looking at your background, Ms. Dansereau, in the forest industry and some of the consulting you've done, I guess I could turn this into a natural resources committee here before we're done. I'd just like to talk to you about the experience you're bringing and the impact that forest operations have on watercourses and lakes.

In my riding there's some discussion about clear-cutting a significant section near a lake. While the decision to do that is a natural resources and provincial decision, using your experience, where do you think DFO's input on that is? What input would you have in the ultimate decisions on that practice with respect to the long-term health of that lake?

[Claire Dansereau]

Some of my knowledge on those files is a little dated. I will refresh my understanding as I work in this department, but having done very similar work in looking at fish-forest interactions in my previous work, I know that there's a significant role for DFO. I actually used to spend some time teaching changing environmental practices in logging camps, and one of the things I taught was something called fish-forest guidelines, which were how to manage forestry operations and design logging plans while taking into consideration the impacts on fish, and what role the department would play on that in particular.

There is an interaction. The department does have a role to play. I'm not sure in that particular case what that would be, but I know that we do have some say in any possible impact that any operation would have on fishing or fish.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Could you see that, as in one of the comments you stated before, as a direct management of key files? We talked about gravel extraction as being one, but would you see the others, the interprovincial relationship and the inner relationship between natural resources policy and DFO policy, as being one of those potential key files?

[Claire Dansereau]

It hasn't come up, but it's an interesting question, and I thank you for it. I suspect that it will go into the mix. Thank you.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

My next question is around wild species. I know DFO has recently met with New Brunswick Power Corporation with respect to the issue of downstream passage of salmon smolt on the Saint John River system in New Brunswick.

One of the questions I'd like to ask, and maybe Mr. Bevan can answer it as well, si what is the department doing with respect to company accountability? I know in a lot of cases there are fish ladders going upriver, but there's nothing to prevent the mortality of downstream smolt coming down the river. What are some of the types of things that you see the department doing in the long term to help with those kinds of things and hold these companies accountable for that?

[David Bevan]

The Fisheries Act is a powerful tool as regards the fish habitat and actions to protect fish. We obviously like to work collaboratively with companies, and it's not just salmon but it's also American eel and other species that are of great concern. And mortalities in the turbines, etc., are a significant issue. We have been working with them through the provinces as well to try to reduce mortality. There are accountabilities, but I think the first step is through a collaborative approach and dealing with it that way before we turn to other tools.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

The minister commented the other day that we're trying to do as much research and find out as much information as possible, because what's happening in the river system is probably not the only reason for mortality; there's also probably something else happening. The sea lice is one, and then there are probably high-seas issues as well.

Do you see it as an issue that the department, at least on the local side, can take every possible action with companies to ensure that we can at least look after the river side of it?

[David Bevan]

We are doing that. It's really a complex issue. If you look at the Bay of Fundy alone, that's certainly a significant issue, but across both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts we have seen marked declines in survival at sea. In the Pacific there's been collaborative work with the Japanese and other nations that share that ecosystem with us focusing on oceanographic conditions and the impacts on salmon. On the Atlantic we've worked with the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization, NASCO, the RFMO that looks after salmon in the North Atlantic, and we have worked on SALSEA, which is the salmon at sea program. We have provided a great deal of support to that in terms of ship time and scientific time, but the real question is what's happening at sea. If we focus on something like the Bay of Fundy, we could say let's look at the Saint John River, let's look at the local ecosystem, or whatever. But the bigger question is why salmon are not surviving in the marine environment the same way they used to. That study is going to take some time, and it's taking lots of international cooperation to get the resources we need focused on it.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

At the risk of inciting your Irish temper, I'll hand it over to Mr. Kamp.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Mr. Kamp.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

I do have a general question for you, Ms. Dansereau, but before that, I hope you can help us clarify--pardon the pun--something that's been raised already, both in this meeting and I think in a previous meeting. The recent small craft harbours announcements that were made in Nova Scotia would be 2007-08 funding, if I understand, and we would not be ready to release the 2008-09 projects that are being suggested here because the budget isn't completely through the process. Is that right, as far as you know?

[Claire Dansereau]

That's correct. Thank you for that clarification. What we had talked about on Tuesday was the previous plan, and the one coming up is not yet finalized, nor is it in the minister's office.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Okay.

I thank you for the latitude, Mr. Chair, but within the bounds, let me ask this question. Even for somebody who gets to work from time to time with the bureaucracy, it's a little unclear to me what an associate deputy minister does. I think I understand what assistants do. They have their line-up of responsibilities, both Mr. Bevan or Mr. Hegge or others. Can you tell us just a bit more what your job description is? You've talked about particular files and you've talked about complementing the minister. I assume that means more than she's wearing a nice dress today. Are there people who report to you? Do you have a line that reports to you? That's my question.

[Claire Dansereau]

Thank you for the question. It is an ever-perplexing question, even for those who sit in the seat. I think you've all met associate deputies before.

As you know, departments are very large, very complex, very high stress, and very demanding. The myriad of files that any one person can look at on a given day is phenomenal.

The associate deputy does not have a particular, specifically written job description with line responsibilities in the same way as an assistant deputy minister does. We have what is commonly known as “two in a box”. It's a box of deputies that has the senior deputy minister, the deputy minister, and the associate deputy minister. We complement--with an "e", not an "i", although sometimes we do the other too--each other in terms of our knowledge and our abilities. It really is about workload sharing, as I said in my introductory remarks.

Each mix of associate and deputy will reach its own conclusions on how best to divide up those tasks. In some departments it does almost result in a set of line functions. In other departments, it never does. It's about which files should we hand off right now because they need particular attention, and that would shift, as it should shift. It's about development opportunities as well for the associate as they come up through the system.

In our case we've decided that it will be about specific files. I will be looking at and managing in terms of general specifics, if I can say that, the executive services and how to keep that all straight, and the values and ethics component of the department. Those people will report directly to me as well.

On the issue of executive services, clearly in any department it requires constant refreshment on how it's done, as governments change. I have recently done a review of the correspondence systems. I did that when I was at Indian Affairs and I will do that here as well--how best to serve people as they write in to make sure that we actually get responses out in time and that type of thing. Your questions are well placed in that regard.

So it's the executive services and support to the minister in that way, specific files, and overall workload sharing with the deputy.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Kamp.

Mr. Simms, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a question for all three, but, Ms. Dansereau, I'll start with you on this one.

On oceans management, of the five major ocean areas I've received quite a bit of input from the PNCIMA, which I'm sure you're familiar with, given your experience with the west coast.

PNCIMA talked about how there seems to be a lack of a grand vision as to what our oceans management strategy is today. They talked about how many of the projects are being siloed into different areas, and I speak specifically of the marine protected areas. Within these areas, obviously, we have some troubles with stakeholders and how they feel about how the marine protected areas are working, but their problem is an overall strategy because it lacks an overall vision.

Given your experiences with PNCIMA, and maybe you've had experiences through your work in the forestry as well, because lately there's been a pine beetle issue and how it is going to affect the oceans and forestry, I want to know how you feel about this particular file and how you see the vision of the current strategy of our oceans management.

[Claire Dansereau]

Thank you for the question.

I know that management at PNCIMA is a must in the vision, as it's currently written, of bringing the parties together to design something for it. I agree. I also understand, because I know British Columbia well, that it won't be easy to do that, to bring various parties together. The minister has met often with the oceans people from British Columbia, from the Suzuki Foundation and the other NGOs. I think people recognize that this will take time to pull together. I think everybody shares the view that it's a necessity, but it's not going to be easy.

Yes, I will be following it with great interest, obviously, as I will all the others. Anything that is a stakeholder consultation process, just by personal interest, I'm going to pay close attention to.

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

One of the things they mentioned was how there was such a lack of designated protection areas within our ocean strategy--I mean, really staggering amounts. We're talking about less than 1% when it comes to our oceans, and that goes for the three ocean areas on the east coast--Placentia Bay and St. Lawrence and ESSIM. You juxtapose that with the strategy for land protected areas, such as Canada Parks and these areas, and the numbers are quite staggering.

If you compare our record with places like Australia or New Zealand, our ocean protected areas really are minuscule compared to what they've done. This is mostly what we get from the NGOs.

Would you agree or disagree? Do you think the dynamic is changing here?

[Claire Dansereau]

Definitely the dynamics are changing. I don't know if the percentage is right or wrong. I know that the percentage on the land side was subject to years of debate, back and forth, give and take, analysis of function, analysis of need, and analysis of social impact. We must take social impacts into consideration as we make these decisions.

It's that old Brundtland report approach to things that's still, in my mind, valid. We still need the three pillars, because if you don't protect the environment, you don't protect people, and if you don't protect people, you're not protecting the environment.

That still has to be central to whatever the decision is. Rather than picking a percentage to say that's our goal, I think we need to determine what the needs are and, as governments always have to, balance the priorities, balance how we manage these things in the same way as we will manage gravel extraction in the Fraser--what are the basic needs that we have, and how do we best achieve those?

I have no idea if the percentage, as it currently exists, is the right one. I know that these things are going to require, probably for the next 100 years, give and take on the part of the people who have an interest in those questions.