Fisheries Committee on Feb. 10th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

We're just going to take a five-minute recess and then we'll return with our second round, which will be for the officials.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

We are ready to begin a second round. Each party will have five minutes with the officials.

We will start off with Mr. Byrne.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

One of the key issues facing the fishing industry is access to capital, but as well they're struggling with this point: how can we minimize our costs without compromising conservation and get through this credit crunch?

One of the solutions that have been suggested is the concept known as the buddying-up system. There is a provision, a course of action being taken by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and supported by many fishermen. It is an exercise called “combining”, whereby one enterprise would buy out another enterprise, and the value of those licences or the quota attached to them could be combined into one enterprise.

I'm not hearing any particularly strong dissent to that particular issue. I think people welcome it, generally speaking. One of the major points that have been raised is to the department's reaction to a parallel system called buddying-up, whereby instead of actually formally buying each other out, enterprises would simply act in partnership with each other and buddy up. They'd use one boat, expend less in capital, less in cost, take exactly the same amount of fish out of the water as they normally would, but simply at a reduced cost. That seems to make an awful lot of sense.

I understand that there's a division between the less-than-40-foot vessels and the over-40-foot vessels. The department is prepared, I understand, to allow vessels less than 40 feet in length to continue the practice of buddying up, but it would be significantly restricted. The leasing provisions would be eliminated, and only two enterprises would be allowed the buddying up. Normal practice has been that up to four enterprises would buddy up, and in fact because of the availability of this option, in several instances an enterprise of core fishermen may have actually structured the business operations so that they could continue. Four fishermen, four enterprises would structure their business operations to allow them to continue buddying up.

By suspension of this option, what the department is effectively doing is forcing now, in the middle of a financial crisis, for fishermen to go out and buy a 40-foot vessel in order to properly.... He can still use his speedboat, but now he has to buy a 40-foot vessel. Fishermen just do not see the logic in this. They see it has no impact whatsoever on conservation, but a huge impact on their bottom line.

Perhaps, Mr. Bevan, you could explain this a bit further. What exactly is the intention of the department? In regard to the vessels larger than 40 feet, why are you preventing vessels larger than 40 feet from participating in any buddying-up exercise whatsoever?

[Michelle d'Auray]

Perhaps, Mr. Chair, I could just begin before I ask Mr. Bevan to respond to your specific questions.

We are and have been on the receiving end of a lot of the comments around buddying up and combining. There are views that are encouraging us to maintain our existing policy. As well, there are those who are encouraging us to diverge from the policy. The original intent when we started off on this was in fact to encourage those to combine with a view to buying each other out, to completing the transaction. We recognize that in the current circumstances there may be some financial pressures that may not allow everybody to complete what they had intended to start. So we are looking at all of the components of the issue at this point. There's not a uniform set of views on this, but we are weighing all of the pluses and minuses.

The decision we will make will also put it in such a way that we do not penalize those who have undertaken the first steps towards combining their enterprises. That, too, is something we're aware of, so that people who have made significant investments do not begin to lose them.

Perhaps, David, you would comment on the specifics.

[David Bevan, Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

On the specifics, as the deputy mentioned, people have gone ahead with the combining process, and in a number of cases enterprises have been combined. We don't want to penalize them, nor do we want to create an unfair advantage on others. We are looking at different rules that would apply this year, compared to last year, that would be geared toward a balance between those who have combined, those who wish to reduce their costs through buddying up, and make sure that in the process of it there's not going to be an opportunity for somebody to extract resource rent and not be a fisherman, or an opportunity for people to create a buddy-up arrangement, break it down, go competitive fishing in another fishery, and then recombine. Again, we feel it's not something that would be fair.

There are some changes being contemplated, and we are looking at taking that to the minister for her approval in the very near future and then we will be coming out to make announcements. We have discussed this with fishermen and are trying to get the right balance.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

But you're not pronouncing yourself one way or the other.

[David Bevan]

There will be buddying up in both fleets. We have to seek the approval of the minister on what the specific arrangements will be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Lévesque.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. d'Auray, let me take this opportunity to thank you for your fine cooperation for all the time that you have been in this position.

Welcome to Ms. Dansereau and to these gentlemen.

In her presentation, the minister mentioned something about Employment Insurance to which I have to object. Five additional weeks are being added to the end of a period of Employment Insurance for the workers, the fishers and those in the plants that depend on the fishery, but these people do not benefit at all.

When the Employment Insurance period starts, the fishers have accumulated some small savings so that they can do their work, but they have to use it waiting for benefits because of the two-week waiting period. We asked for the two-week waiting period to be eliminated so that the fishers can put some savings aside in order to maintain their standard of living. I am not even asking the question, because you cannot answer it. But I see the situation as deplorable.

On another matter, the Coast Guard is apparently receiving $25 million to make up for the rise in the price of petroleum products. Those costs are now dropping significantly. Is the Coast Guard going to keep this money for other activities, or, if there is a surplus, does it have to return the money to the public purse?

[Michelle d'Auray]

I will let my colleague answer that.

[George Da Pont]

Thank you.

Our normal budget for fuel is about $41 million annually. Under the provision before the committee, we received $25 million to cover the increased fuel costs. Most of these costs are incurred at the beginning of the year, particularly when all the icebreakers are in the Arctic. We have already spent $53 or $54 million. We forecast that we will use most of the $25 million, but if the money is not spent on fuel, we have to return it to the Department of Finance.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

You have 45 seconds left.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Turning to aquaculture, you are going to be receiving about $10 million for a new program. Can you tell us about that program?

[Michelle d'Auray]

There are four aspects to the program. The first is in the supplementary estimates under Aquaculture Innovation and Market Access Program. So its purpose is to support the development of the industry and new production techniques, to test measures designed to increase capacity or reduce costs, in some cases.

The second aspect, which is quite important for most producers, seeks to reduce the duplication and overlap in federal and provincial regulations. Regulations are not always compatible. This is to harmonize the regulations, in a way.

The third aspect deals with regulatory science. We need a scientific basis from which to help the sector to observe the regulations imposed by all levels of government. We have already had some programs and initiatives, but this is in order to strengthen our capacity.

The final aspect deals with the certification and traceability of products. It will be announced in a year and has not been launched yet.

So in summary, the four aspects are innovation, regulation, regulatory science and product traceability.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Madam.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Thank you very much.

I go back to an earlier question I had asked the minister regarding the west coast and the Pacific north coast integrated management area, about the funding for it. I should have elaborated a bit more. There are many stakeholder groups that would like to attend the event and may not be able to afford it: fisheries, industry, tourism, conservation, and governmental groups. The question should be, in order to get this March forum off to a good start and get all the information we require, would the government consider funding those various groups to attend that event?

[Michelle d'Auray]

We work very closely with a number of the organizations. I know we did have some discussions as to where this would be best located in terms of the event, and in the end, for a number of reasons, for a range of participants, it was felt that holding it in Vancouver was the most opportune. If there are some organizations, we could easily talk to them, but I think the goal here is to be able to get the initiative off the ground and, frankly, focus our resources on the work that needs to be done by the organizations around PNCIMA.

The launch is important—I understand that—but we would also like to focus the resources on getting the plan and the management plan done, because that's really important for the future of PNCIMA.

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

Okay. I have a couple of other questions.

Last year there were discussions about seven possible harbours for the Nunavut area. We notice in the budget that there was more development for Pangnirtung, and I'm sure that's greatly appreciated. But I spoke to a Nunavut representative yesterday and he asked me to ask you about the other six. I know you're working with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development regarding that. Where is that process now for the additional six wharves in Nunavut?

As well, as you know, I've been quite critical of previous and current governments regarding schedule 2 of the mining act, which basically puts the Fisheries Act to the side and allows certain mining companies to destroy perfectly healthy aquatic systems, as we see in Sandy Pond and Trout Lake in Newfoundland, and there are other lakes across the country that are slated, and some in Baffin Island have already been destroyed. With everybody now talking about the so-called shovel-ready projects, if I were a fish, a shovel would make me very nervous because it disrupts my habitat.

But I notice on page 55 of the report on plans and priorities, in regard to conservation and protection of fish habitat, for this year it's $32.8 million, but it's dropping to $28.8 million, so there's a loss of $4 million there.

As well, on page 52, the human resources for oceans management, habitat, science, and program enablers are scheduled to have 1,389 full-time equivalents, and you're going down to 1,324. That would lead somebody to believe that habitat and oceans management may be taking a bit of a hit financially on this one. Can you explain why those two areas are coming down?

Also, what is the government planning to do regarding schedule 2? I've been to Sandy Pond, and in my view, what they plan to do to that beautiful aquatic system is simply not on. Yet the department's role is the protection of fish and fish habitat. We hear the department constantly say that's what we need to do, yet we see evidence where some habitat is allowed to be destroyed for other reasons. Can you comment on that, please?

By the way, Michelle, thank you for the work you've done. Good luck on your move to where you're going.

To the associate, you can get rid of “associate” and just call yourself the deputy minister now. So there you go. Congratulations.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Stoffer.

I'll tackle a number of those and I may ask a couple of my colleagues.

With regard to the harbours in Nunavut, I understand the pressures and the interest of the Nunavut government, but it is the first time that we would be building one harbour or one wharf in the north. The costs and techniques around that are quite significant, so our goal is to get one done and to get it done as quickly as we can.

It's important because around Pangnirtung there is commercial fishing activity, not that there wouldn't be as a result of the others once they were built, but this one is a pretty important one, and we want to get it right and get it done as quickly as possible. As you know, construction season and airlifting the equipment and all of that takes a fair amount of time and organization. It's not that we couldn't handle all seven, but we'll start with the one. It doesn't mean that the others won't get done, but we'll focus on this one to begin with.

With regard to the question of habitat and the schedules for the MMERs, as we call them, and the tailings ponds, it's always a balancing act of having development and, at the same time, what is the best way in which to deal with tailings effluents and results. A number of techniques are used in different parts of the world, but every time we come up with the assessment of the cost-benefit and the security around enclosing tailings, the most effective way is to do it in an existing water body. We don't make those decisions and recommendations lightly. We always have extensive discussions with the companies involved in order to be able to make sure there is a significant compensation plan around them.

There are a number of these. At this point, there are seven. We have a fairly significant number of other developments that are not using tailings ponds as a means of addressing the issue as a result of mining waste disposal. But every time we do an assessment of some of the most significant impacts of tailings and we look at what is the most effective way of containing them, putting the tailings in a water body is, in fact, one of the most effective and secure ways of making sure the tailings do not seep. For example, if we put some on land in containment, we've often found that they seep into the water tables, which is a worse case scenario than putting them in a natural water body that is self-contained.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Kamp.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're just going to ask a series of short questions, moving down the line here until we run out of time.

I was pleased to see, in budget 2009, investment in federal laboratories. As part of that announcement, there was a line about the salmon enhancement program having access to that $250 million announced there. Where I'm from, the salmon enhancement program in British Columbia is very important. It's my view that the budget hasn't increased for decades, I suppose, so the amount of work they can do has been decreased.

The budget refers to deferred maintenance, so I wonder if you can tell us if we know yet how much of this $250 million the salmon enhancement program in B.C. might have access to. Then I have a specific question. Is this only for DFO-owned hatcheries, for example, or DFO facilities, or is it for the community-owned and community-operated ones as well? Would they have access to some of this money?

[Michelle d'Auray]

Perhaps I'll be brief in my response.

In terms of how much the salmon enhancement program will be receiving out of this initiative, we have just begun discussions with the Treasury Board Secretariat, which is responsible for overseeing the initiative. The proposals we have put forward include refurbishment of DFO and community facilities, but the way in which the program is designed at this point is really to focus on government-owned facilities. The nature of the refits are in terms of buildings, water access, and water treatment, of the filtration, if I can put it this way, so there are some specific refurbishments that need to be done.

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

Thank you.