Fisheries Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2014

[Kevin Stringer]

We have these going on in many different parts across the country. We have a number of candidate sites that are moving forward. The one that you are speaking about is one. We can probably get more details in terms of that specific one, but we do have activity moving forward. We've identified some priority areas and we already have marine protected areas established.

I think we'll have to come back with a specific response to you.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I would indeed like you to provide more specific details soon on your services that relate to the estuary. I would find that very helpful.

In October 2014, we learned of the closing of the Maurice Lamontagne Institute library. This institution in Mont-Joli, in the Lower St. Lawrence, was Fisheries and Oceans Canada's only French-language library. This decision goes completely against the recommendations of the commissioner of Official Languages.

Don't you think that closing the only point of service in North America devoted to marine sciences is unacceptable?

[Tom Rosser, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the member for his question.

Closing the Mont-Joli library was part of a change in the business model for managing our collections and our libraries. In reality, 96% of research by library users is done electronically. We are investing significantly in digitizing our collections.

The Mont-Joli library, similar to our libraries elsewhere in the country, has always been bilingual. Most of the collections were in English. However, we had collections in English and French. We wanted to transform how we provide information to our users by making it more modern.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

That is in no way consistent with the information I had.

In a modern world, information requests are indeed made electronically. People ask that we send the PDFs and not documents in hard copy. Nevertheless, there was still a direct interaction on site between staff and researchers, sometimes by telephone. A human being who speaks French cannot be replaced by some kind of vague website. That is not a conclusive decision, in my opinion.

I would like to address another issue.

Many experts want the bluefin tuna to be declared a threatened species. However, Canada has asked regularly for a few years now that bluefin tuna fishing quotas be increased. What is the scientific basis for Canada's position on this?

Could you tell us what the scientific basis is for Canada's position on this? I believe it is fairly complicated to understand.

[Kevin Stringer]

In terms of bluefin tuna, the decision with respect to the total allowable catch on bluefin tuna is made by ICCAT, which is an international body dealing with tuna and tuna-like species. Canada is one of 49 contracting parties that participate in that.

A recovery plan was put in place in the 1990s for this species. Canada has been part of that. Every year science is done to assess how the bluefin tuna is doing and that science is provided to the ICCAT, the international tuna group, who met last month. They provide science advice with the suggestion of what a total allowable catch could be. This year's science advice said that there was room for an increase and that there should not be a reduction in the species as long as it didn't go above 2,250 tonnes in the fishery that Canada participates in. They did identify that there are signs of recovery in the species. On the decision to land at 2,000 tonnes, I think the view was that it was a cautious position that is somewhat up from where we were but short of where the science advice said we could go.

At the end of the day regardless of whether something is before us for consideration under the Species at Risk Act, we need to make a decision based on the science advice. That's one point.

The second point is that Canada is not alone in making this decision. We're one of 49 contracting parties that are at ICCAT, so that's basically how the decision gets made.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Lapointe. I will caution you, Mr. Lapointe, on mixing up the red and the blue.

Thank you.

Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you.

We're really always delighted to hear from you. I wish we had hours because this is so important to Canadians, especially in British Columbia, where the minister has made countless visits and has on many occasions acknowledged the key role salmon has to play for British Columbians. It's where, I believe, we say the environment is the economy, and fisheries is such a key part of both.

My questions relate to the role British Columbians have played in bringing about changes, and how the department and the government have responded. I'd like to ask you three questions.

Firstly, on the recreational fisheries program, you've already alluded to that. At a time of global restraint, a new program was created, against the grain. I'd like you to comment further on the reach that has had.

Secondly, you've talked about the Pacific Salmon Foundation, with 30,000 to 40,000 volunteers in British Columbia. I'd appreciate it if you could give us some examples of how the PSF distributes the funding.

Then, thirdly, on enforcement, British Columbians have expressed their concern that in this time of global restraint, habitat officers were let go. Can you just comment on how that has ended? How have the efficiencies been improved to make sure that we are still enforcing our rules and protecting our precious fish, especially the salmon?

[Matthew King]

Thank you for the three questions, Mr. Chair. I'll try to answer them very quickly.

With respect to the recreational fisheries program, I believe Kevin gave quite a few statistics about how that has been rolled out over the last year and a bit. It's obviously a program that has struck a resident chord with Canadians. We're seeing all kinds of projects coming from all kinds of groups, and already I think we have begun to accumulate a fair number of metrics on the value of the program, which is very encouraging. British Columbia, of course, is planning a huge role in that. The linkage between this program and the salmon fishery is obviously immediate. As I just count my way through here, if you will, there have been at least 15 of these projects in British Columbia, so British Columbians have taken up this program in a big way.

With respect to the Pacific Salmon Foundation, obviously the department has had a relationship with the PSF for a long time. Over the years we had always turned over a certain percentage of our fees to the PSF. Typically it was around $300,000 a year, which the PSF used, in conjunction with all of its other fundraising, to do all kinds of great projects in British Columbia. As you mentioned, in last year's budget that contribution to the PSF was increased by $1 million to now $1.3 million. That has allowed the foundation to expand significantly the types of programs that it runs. Historically it has been among, as you're well aware, the most popular programs in British Columbia. Almost always it's community based. More often than not, it's family based, in that any given weekend you can see moms and dads and kids out there working on really important projects for the long-term success of Pacific salmon. In a sense, the two programs do complement each other.

I'm going to turn to Kevin for the conservation and protection part of the question.

[Kevin Stringer]

Sure. Thanks, Deputy.

I'll just add that in terms of the Pacific Salmon Foundation, you know they used to get one dollar out of every six from the conservation stamp. They now get six, so they get the whole thing. It is an extra $1 million for them. In addition to the restoration work, they're on the cutting edge. They're dealing with partners. They're dealing with science. They're connected to people who we need to be connected to. It has been an enormously useful partnership for us, and they're doing really important work in terms of supporting us with salmon management long term.

There have been reductions, which you've spoken to, in terms of staff working on the fisheries protection program. I would say that the program has changed. Our focus, in terms of the regulatory regime, is around significant impacts to fish and around major projects. The other part of our focus is developing partnerships with those groups who are out in the field, through the recreational fisheries partnership program, through the Pacific Salmon Foundation program, through the funds that we provided to the Atlantic salmon foundation that's doing work. It really is a somewhat different focus.

What we need to be able to do—and we do believe that we have the ability—is to look at the major projects that are being done and ensure ourselves that we're protecting, in terms of the potential impacts on those fisheries. We're confident that we can do that.

What we've done is we've consolidated from 63 offices to 16. We've built some economies of scale. We've pulled people together in different offices. We've identified centres of expertise, and we're operating on a different model. As I said, we're partnering with community groups who are helping us in fisheries management and protection.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Leef.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all to witnesses.

I'm going to focus on the coast guard end of things. I had a great opportunity, a couple of weeks ago now, to be in Victoria and meet with the folks on the Sir Wilfrid Laurier after they returned. I'll just say quickly, “Congratulations to the great folks working there”. They did a wonderful community outreach right on the Sir Wilfrid Laurier itself, brought school groups in, and were able to talk to them directly about the discovery of the Franklin, which was a really exciting moment in Canadian history, an exciting chapter for the Canadian Coast Guard, with wonderful contributions on their part.

They should certainly be acknowledged for the great work they did involving the local school groups in that program. I think it's just a wonderful outreach opportunity by the department and by the folks of the Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

I had the opportunity to talk about two specific things with them. One was their excitement around the helicopter procurement and the new work they were doing. They were pretty clear that there's a lot of work that's done when I talked to them about the coast guard helicopters from the search and rescue mission that occurred during the time of the Franklin. The pilot, in fact, was ultimately responsible for finding the first pieces of the Franklin on the beach that led to the narrowing down of that search position.

At the same time, they were involved in assisting the mapping services that were going on. There were three very diverse and distinct events that they were participating in, in a very short period of time. They talked about the role of the helicopter on that vessel and were highlighting, of course, the need for new helicopters.

I'm going to ask for a little bit of further background on the role that this procurement will play, why it's necessary, and how this $20-million allocation is going to assist.

If you have time, perhaps you can touch on the additional investments in terms of the side sonar scanning technology that's available for the mapping that's going on and what other additional roles, such as the discovery of the Franklin, will play a factor, and why the investments in the supplementary (B) estimates are important for those two things.

[Marc Grégoire]

I'll come back to the helicopter. First of all, we're told by Airbus Helicopters that we have the oldest fleet in the world now in the BO-105. It's the same thing for the Bell 212, which is frankly from the time of the Vietnam war, so the helicopters at the coast guard are extremely old. They are very well maintained, but of course very expensive to maintain. Helicopters are owned by the coast guard, but they are operated and maintained by Transport Canada under an MOU we have with them.

This project to replace the helicopters is a major piece of our fleet renewal, but it's much faster to get the helicopters because we're basically buying off the shelf. You are right, if you met some helicopter pilots out on the west coast, they are quite ecstatic about the change. Some of them have actually tried the new Bell 429. I should have said earlier that the first three helicopters have flown already and have been certified. One has gone to the refit and paint shop already. So we can't wait to get them. One of the things I'll be very sorry to not see as a commissioner is the new helicopters when they come in.

The helicopters play a very important role everywhere, but especially in the Arctic. Of course in the Arctic, when the Sir Wilfrid Laurier was searching in the Victoria Strait for the Erebus, the helicopter was used to move people around, and as you mentioned they moved people to the shore to establish a GPS station to facilitate a more precise search in the bay there. The pilot was actually on bear watch, so he was watching for polar bears and making sure that the two geographers installing the GPS station would be protected. I should say that this is the standard procedure, and as he was walking around and doing his polar bear watch he found this piece of the ship and that kind of was the proof that the ship was right there. This is why the search concentrated in this area right after that, and very quickly the Erebus was found.

The side sonar scanner actually does not belong to the coast guard. In some cases we have our own. This one I believe belonged to National Defence and was borrowed by Parks Canada and we were using some of the boats launched from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier to use it. We had a sonar on board the Sir Wilfrid Laurier . It was a temporary multibeam scanner on board the Sir Wilfrid Laurier , which provided after-the-fact extremely precise images of the bottom of the ocean in that area. That's technology that we will be hoping to get on other ships in future years. This year we have installed a very sophisticated multibeam scanner on the Louis S. St. Laurent, which was used in the polar mission.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Grégoire.

Thank you, Mr. Leef.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I would like to thank you and congratulate you on how you handled the bluefin tuna and the quotas. I understand it's a challenge where it's fished around the world, so thank you for that.

On page 34 of the department's corporate business plan it says that the capital reinvestment is “insufficient to upgrade aging infrastructure and equipment”, and that “could affect service delivery and endanger shipping and mariners”.

Mr. Grégoire, I'd like you to comment on that, considering that your budget was $540 million of authorized spending in 2013 and only $448 million was spent. The fleet's maintenance budget was planned for $138 million and only $107 million was spent, and the fleet procurement budget was estimated at $115 million and only $62 million was spent. Looking at your corporate business plan indicating that it's insufficient and could cause a danger to shipping and mariners, I'd just like you to elaborate on that.

Being that it's my last question probably for you, thank you for your service.

[Marc Grégoire]

Ever in life....

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

We never know.

[Marc Grégoire]

Yeah, you never know, indeed.

A very good question, but let's not get carried away because the coast guard spent its money. First, on the capital dollars—

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

You didn't spend what was allocated.

[Marc Grégoire]

Let me explain.

First of all we have an A-base budget, which is composed of vote 1: budgets, salaries, and maintenance. We have a small budget at the coast guard for grants and contributions, of which we spent it all, almost to the dollar. It goes mostly to the coast guard auxiliaries.

We also have the capital investment portion and we have the B-base budget, which is composed of a big chunk of money that's part of the $5.2 billion announced in budget 2012. Why is it that you see those big movements of money? I think Marty explained it earlier in his presentation. It's cash management and it's to move the money around according to the schedule of the shipyards. For instance we may have planned earlier.... We have to do those papers way in advance, so we proposed that we were going to spend a lot of money on the OFSV, the offshore science vessels. In discussion with the shipyard we agreed that we cannot start the building now. We have to start the building a bit later. That forces us to move the money from one year to another year.

No money is lost there. There's only one little bit of money that's lapsed and it was by design. If I go back to the vote 1, last year, we had a big chunk of money to do the Zalinski operation. We had received from the government $46.4 million specifically to remove the oil from the Zalinski, which is located south of Prince Rupert. We did that operation and there was less oil than what we had figured originally. We finished with $22.9 million less than the $46.4 million we were given. That was lapsed, meaning it was returned. In the last few years, that's the only time where we lapsed in the vote 1 by more than 1%. We're within the 1%.

If you take this out of my budget we're within 1%. We're never going to be at 0% because it's too dangerous to go above and to spend more than the allocated budget. It's very prudent to be within. The government procedures and the budgetary process allow us to go 5% under and to carry forward this 5% amount. In our case we're managing our budget so closely that we're within 1%.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much.

In your corporate business plan it says that the major human resource challenge at DFO is its inability to attract, develop, and retain the staff needed to achieve the objectives of the integrated fisheries management program. I understand that there was $60 million put in. Is that the reason why, and will that fill the gap?

[Matthew King]

I think we're signalling a general risk to not just our department, I would submit, but to all the departments. This is related to where we are in a demographic bubble. Happily now we're seeing a flattening in our retirement rate, but we have signalled the need to have to be more aggressive in making sure that we have an influx of young and new public servants into the department in time to have them trained and then carry on work such as the development of the IFMP. We're citing it as a risk and it's something that we need to pay a lot of attention to, particularly over the next five years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. MacAulay.

Mr. Chisholm.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to ask three questions, and I'm going to try to do it quickly and give time for the response.

We talked a bit about Cohen and the response to Cohen. At our last meeting that you attended, you indicated there were 12 responses. You've indicated that you've responded in a couple of other cases. I wonder if I could ask the witnesses, Mr. Chairman, to provide us a further response indicating how the department has responded to the recommendations to date from the Cohen Commission report.

With respect to the Atlantic salmon, you've indicated what a problem their survival continues to be. I know, for example, that the Southern Upland Atlantic salmon in Nova Scotia is on the endangered species list, yet there was a decision made last year to bulldoze the Mersey River biodiversity station, which was doing important research in that respect. I wonder if you could quickly provide an explanation for that.

Finally, following the last CITES conference, Canada placed reservations on all 76 new species added to appendices I and II, a list that includes the polar bear and the porbeagle shark. I wonder if you would indicate when the government plans to remove these reservations and introduce the necessary legislation to protect these endangered species.

Thank you.

[Trevor Swerdfager]

Thank you very much for that question.

With respect to the Mersey River station, I think you're quite right. What we've done is consolidated our operations there into two other sites.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I call it “bulldozing”, but you'd say “consolidation”.

I won't argue.