Evidence of meeting #20 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was know.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:50 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
No, I can't. I don't know that answer. The minister is not aware of that either.
9:50 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
That's a matter between the various companies.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Bill Matthews Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
So the department would have no concern whatsoever about the dollar value that changes hands on a common property resource such as this.
9:50 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The practice on enterprise allocations, as we have had for the last 30 years, is that we would evaluate the request to transfer the quota from one company to another based on the policies that are administered by the department and approved by the minister. Those policies are that the company receiving the quota has to be qualified to do so and to fish it. Anything that happens between the companies is between the companies.
That policy was put in place as we made significant decisions, for example, on 2J3KL cod. The first 115,000 tonnes go to the inshore and the remainder would be shared between the inshore and the offshore. And those kinds of quota shifts that we made in the past to give portions of the quota to the offshore occurred because they didn't have as much as they had in the past and they needed the opportunity to be able to fish it economically, and that's what we've allowed them to do.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Bill Matthews Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
I saw a recent letter to your minister from the Newfoundland and Labrador fisheries minister, Minister Rideout, expressing concern about this transfer. He talked about adjacency, dependency, and I believe at one point in one part of the letter he mentioned some concern about Bill C-32. I think they felt some comfort in Bill C-32, that this type of thing wouldn't happen.
I know the minister has to respond to the other minister. But what do you think off the top about Minister Rideout's concerns?
9:50 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I think I'll have to leave that to our minister to respond. Certainly Bill C-32 is now drafted in a way that the minister, if the bill is passed in its current form, must consider adjacency, historical attachment, etc. The same concerns have been expressed by the ministers from Nunavut as well, so those concerns have been expressed and they will be responded to by the minister.
Certainly the current act allows absolute discretion to the minister, without any process, without any considerations being required in law. And those decisions can be taken very rapidly by the minister of the day.
The new act would provide a much more transparent process and one that would be more readily understood by the people involved in the decision.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Bill Matthews Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
I'm probably being unfair to push the issue with you. I wanted to do it with the minister on Tuesday, but of course we ran out of time.
In light of where we are with Bill C-32, you'd think that in making this decision, or maybe not making it, the minister would have said that in Bill C-32, here's where we're aiming to get, so why would I go do this at this point in time? Do you know what I'm saying?
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Bill Matthews Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
It seems a little funny to me. If you were overly suspicious, you'd say we'll get it done before Bill C-32 becomes law. But I'm not suspicious.
9:50 a.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The minister has spoken a number of times on this, and he does take into consideration those items that he would take into consideration, I think, under Bill C-32, which are adjacency and also history.
The decision he made in this case was within an existing industrial structure, so between two companies that currently exist within the fishery, I think that was right. His consideration was therefore given to the historical attachment more so than to the adjacency attachment to Nunavut, which was where the debate was. He weighed both factors in this case.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
One of the key differences, Claire, would be that under Bill C-32 the minister's decision, if it were enforced today, would actually be challengeable under law. In other words, an intervenor could bring it before a federal court and have the court adjudicate as to whether the minister's decision was appropriate or not. Is that correct?
9:55 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Yes, it would be subject to judicial review of the decision relevant to the considerations that the minister is obligated under the law to take into consideration.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
I want to follow up on a comment made by Mr. Stoffer. Your reaction to Mr. Stoffer's comments, Claire, was that open access to information.... We heard testimony from the deputy minister just a few days ago about the small craft harbours program and the decision-making process involved. What we heard very specifically was that—I'm aware of this because of course as a former political assistant myself, I was involved in the management within the minister's office of the small craft harbours program—the department sends forward information to the minister, proposals for his consideration and sign-off. They send it in a batch, both minor capital and major capital, as well as delegated authority to the regions to spend on operations and maintenance and other issues.
We heard from the deputy minister that the minister has received the package, has signed off on the package, and the decision-making is largely done, with the exception of a small number of projects for which additional information may be required. We heard specifically from the deputy minister that the decisions are now taken and it's up to the minister to choose when to announce the projects. So the decision's been taken. It's now a question of announcements.
In your experience in dealing with a $5 billion department—you've obviously been involved in contracting and other things—have you found it important to get that information out as soon as possible so that the contracting process, the call for tenders and other things, could occur in as timely a fashion as possible so that expenditures could occur in the fiscal year in which they were approved? Has that been your experience in the past, and when it's not announced in a timely fashion, that sometimes that does cause certain problems of fiscal management from within the department's various votes?
9:55 a.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Certainly getting things out early is always helpful. Whether or not departments or provincial ministries or even municipalities are able to do things in a timely manner is always difficult. There are always considerations and other priorities that come into play.
So in general, yes, the answer is the sooner the better, obviously, if decisions are made. But as you know, having been there, there are always other things to take into consideration, so it doesn't always happen the way it should.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
9:55 a.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
No. Thank you.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Fabian Manning
Before we begin Mr. Blais's time, I made a mistake, but the mistake is made now.
I went to do a complete second round following our first time of ten minutes, seven minutes, five minutes, ten minutes. I started ten minutes again with the Liberal Party and I realized that the second round was supposed to be all fives, but I've started ten minutes now, and I've decided that we're going to do a complete second round--ten, seven, five, ten, and then we'll start with our fives. Mistake made, mistake announced, and we'll move on. No vote, democracy.
Mr. Blais.
March 13th, 2008 / 9:55 a.m.
Bloc
9:55 a.m.
Bloc
Yvon Lévesque Bloc Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Thank you.
Ms. Dansereau, we've had the opportunity to meet on a number of occasions. The reputation and people skills of people from the North Shore make it easy to pick them out.
I was wondering whether Dansereau Consulting and Facilitation belonged to the North Shore Dansereau family.