Fisheries Committee on Oct. 17th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I notice the minister has just stepped out for a second, so I'll direct my first question to the....

I'm sorry, I didn't get your name, sir.

[Cal Hegge]

It's Cal Hegge.

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

Sir, it's a very simple question. The estimates I have here show so much money now and so much money in two years—estimated. Correct me if I'm wrong, and I hope this is a simple enough question to answer yes or no. The budget right now for oceans management, science and fisheries management, shows quite a reduction in the next two years. Quite simply, in two years, will the budget for those departments be the same as it is now or less than it is now? According to the estimates, it shows less. Are the estimates correct, yes or no?

[Cal Hegge]

Mr. Stoffer, as I said earlier, the estimates are correct based on the information we had at that time. I cannot answer your question about what the actual situation will be over the next two years, because as you know, as government operates there are additional initiatives that come forward supported by memos to cabinet and Treasury Board submissions. We're hopeful that some of the additional money would come to Fisheries and Oceans, which would increase the budget, but—

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

Very good. On that—

[Cal Hegge]

—the answer is, based on the information we knew at the time, that these are accurate.

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

Okay. I'm sorry to interrupt.

Then of course, there's the number of people. In science it shows equivalents of 1,043, equivalents down to 990. Will there be fewer people in the science department in two years' time? According to the estimates, the answer shows as yes, but I'd like to know from you whether that is correct or not.

[Cal Hegge]

I can't answer that definitively, but I can tell you that based on the ERC recommendations of the previous government there were FTE reductions that would be reflected in these figures. As I suggested earlier, we're not implementing all of those reductions, so there will be an adjustment already to these figures that are in the estimates.

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

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Da Pont, first of all I thank you very much for coming to the committee the last time. We talked about that consultation committee regarding marine service fees for the north, and I indicated to you at the time that nobody from north of 60 was on that representation board. Is there somebody on that board now?

[George Da Pont, Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Yes, Mr. Chairman. We met with the National Marine Advisory Council, and they have identified a seat for a northern representative. There was an unfilled seat, actually, from Mr. Stoffer's own province. They are working with the local industry to identify an individual.

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

Thank you very much for that, sir.

Minister, I thank you very much for your attention regarding the north, especially when it came to concerns that this committee discussed with Baffin Fisheries Coalition.

I don't want an answer now, but maybe one when you make the decision. In 1997 DFO had a recommendation that the marine service fees be exempted for the Arctic, and I know that's being discussed at this time. I would highly recommend, if at all possible, to assist the north, that those marine service fees be eliminated or not applied at all. That's just a comment for you.

My last question is this. On June 4 you told the committee you would do everything possible to direct your ministry to enforce the owner-operator and fleet separation policies. I specifically refer to the trust agreements concerning lobster, especially in the chairman's riding and my own as well.

Since then, more trust agreements have been signed between fishermen and corporations, so that the licences are being consolidated more or less as we speak.

I'm wondering, sir, what you and your department have done to eliminate this practice of trust agreements in the lobster industry.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

I have two things, Mr. Chair.

For the record, let me come back to a comment that Mr. Asselin made. He asked who runs the department, the bureaucrats or the minister. I have some of the greatest people in the public service working in my department. They will tell you, and I will tell you, that it's my job to run the department. If there are problems, if there are weaknesses, forget about credit—none of us as politicians get credit—blame me, because the buck stops here. We're the ones who make the decisions, and we're the ones who give the direction.

In relation to Mr. Stoffer's question about the owner-operator, that was a contentious issue around the table, and we said we would deal with that. It's an issue that has to be cleaned up. It is a relatively complicated issue, and let me just run through it. In fact, there are people around this table, Mr. Stoffer, who were with me when we discussed this very issue. And I'm not talking about public servants alone.

I'll use some examples. One that really frustrates a lot of us is the plant owner who in hard times supplied fishermen with money for engines, repairs, whatever, in lieu of turning over their first born to the company. Some of them control numerous licences. They don't hold them. A fishermen has to legally, on paper, hold the licence.

Then you have the guy next door with a buddy who is leaving, so he buys out his buddy. He leaves the licence in his buddy's name, which is the only way it can work, and he or she has one or two licences.

Then you have the businessman in the town, whether he is an undertaker or a grocery store owner or whatever, who owns five or six licences simply because, again, he had enough money to buy them out. The fellow operating the boat gets his meagre income, and the fellow who is not involved in the fishery rakes in the profits.

Then you have groups where fishermen themselves came together, and in some cases—you have some in your own province—because of the way they handled it, they turned out very successful operations that kept communities alive.

You're trying to deal with all of these, but the bottom line is that the licence is owned by a fisherman. The value we derive from the resource in the harvesting side, and whatever else follows, should be to those who are directly involved in the fishery. That's where we're headed. It is being worked on, and hopefully over the next months we'll be dealing with it publicly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Minister Hearn.

Mr. Cummins.

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, over your time on this committee you've always expressed a commitment to small-boat fishermen and you've taken that position with regard to the commercial groundfish integration program that your department put in place early this year. You've maintained that this program has not hurt the small-boat fleet and that it was broadly supported. The broadly supported aspect of it was more or less refuted by a survey last July. The respondents, the people who were surveyed, were sablefishermen and halibut licence holders in British Columbia, and over 70% of them were not supportive of the program.

With regard to the small-boat fleet, I have a stack of e-mail and letters from fishermen in British Columbia who've indicated that this program was very hurtful to them. I have a letter here from Don Ekroth, whose vessel is the Lionheart 2. He's a small-boat guy and he says there doesn't seem to be any place left for mom-and-pop operations anymore. He says that the costs of cameras or observers are so onerous and the technical requirements so cumbersome that he needs a lawyer for a deckhand, instead of his kids.

He talks about the impact on native communities. He says, “I served on the committee that bought back licenses for Natives for several years. Many of the halibut licenses went onto small boats in native communities. Talking to some of them this summer, none of these people can fish any more under the present regulations. Tremendous hardships have been created in the small boat fleet.”

Minister, most of those letters were sent to you, and I got a carbon copy of them, but furthermore I'm in possession of a series of e-mails that were received under access to information. The original request went from a Scott Tessier, who I understand is in your employ; it went to Kevin Stringer, a bureaucrat here in Ottawa, I believe. They were asking about this program. They were trying to get a response to a letter to Mr. Eric Wickham, who many of us around this table know is involved with the Canadian Sablefish Association.

What they're responding to in the response of the department here is that there's no evidence to support Wickham's claim that, and I quote, “Excessive boat costs are putting the small boat fleet out of business.”

Anyway, Tessier sends this letter to Stringer and wants his response. The letter goes back to the west coast, and by this time copies have been given to Lucie McClung, Paul Sprout, Kevin Stringer, and Diana Trager. The response that comes back from Heather James is that they are 100% sure that this program is not affecting small boats. She says, “I have reconfirmed this with the region. To date we have no evidence. Moreover, I would point out to you that while Mr. Wickham continues to allege large impacts on the small boat fleet, he does not represent these people and we have received letters from small boat operators, including”--it's blanked out--“that are supportive of integrated management.”

Mr. Minister, the fact of the matter is that there is widespread opposition to the program. It has hurt small-boat folks. You have been sent letters to this effect. Whether you've received them or not I don't know, but it seems to me that you should have been given a briefing that summarized the content of those letters, and that doesn't seem to have taken place. Furthermore, it would appear that your department has misinformed you on this issue, as is evidenced by this e-mail.

You just said the buck stops here. I'd like to know why your department has not kept you fully informed on this, because in my view they've exposed you politically to serious implications, serious damage. Why has your department not kept you fully informed of the real impact of this program on the small-boat fleet in British Columbia?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

That's an excellent point, Mr. Cummins. I'll certainly allow the minister to answer. I just want to let the minister know that that's another five-minute question, and we do need an answer, so I'll give you time.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Well, Mr. Chair, in order to answer that, it's certainly going to take more than the three seconds that are left.

Let me say one thing. By the way, I do sign every letter that goes out, and I make sure that I'm aware of the contents.

When I came into the department, one of the issues in front of us was the integration program on the west coast. Let me make sure the committee is aware of where that came from. It wasn't made up by my department on the west coast or here; it was a program put together by representatives of industry. One of the people who sat on that group, which came in with the final report to the department, was a fellow by the name of Eric Wickham, with whom some of you are familiar. He's a part-time sablefish fisherman on the west coast.

Industry put together this suggested program because every year, because of bycatch, because of the number of species involved, they were ending up having their fisheries closed down, certainly in halibut and others, because they had reached bycatch levels. They devised a plan of moving or sharing resources--and I can get others to explain it a little more thoroughly, if you want--to try to offset the closure of fisheries. We agonized over the report, but it represented practically every group out there, as I say, including Mr. Wickham's.

When the report was tabled for us and discussed, Mr. Wickham didn't say a word against it. He came back afterwards objecting to it. I challenge you to go to the different sectors in British Columbia, or those who are involved in that fishery this year, and ask them what they thought of the plan. Is it perfect? Absolutely not.

We approved it. It was supposed to be a three-year pilot. We didn't agree with a three-year pilot; that's too long. We agreed to do it for one year, because the status quo just wasn't suitable, except for a few who really wanted the status quo. We went ahead with it for one year, to make sure--the very first thing said was that we didn't want to see the little guy.... In fact, the first question I asked was whether people would be hurt, and some said that maybe a few small vessels might be forced out. We said, no way, José. We said that rules had to be put in place, that the costs had to be spread to make sure that didn't happen.

Did it happen? Did somebody get hurt? Not that I'm aware of, specifically. People have complained about some adverse effects. We've done our best to correct them. Most people have said that yes, it's not perfect and that we need further modification, which we are ready and willing to do. But it is a hell of a lot better than what we had, and most of them caught all their fish this year.

Consequently, there are two sides to every story. We do have some people who are against a lot of what we're trying to do in British Columbia, and we have a lot of people who are for it. What we have to do is make the best decisions we can based on the facts we get, not from our officials but from the groups and agencies. I've met with more groups and more individuals in British Columbia and spent more time there than I've spent not only in any other province but in all other provinces put together.

So, Mr. Chair, we do know what we're doing. Is it perfect? It probably is not. Does it satisfy everybody? It probably does not. But I'll tell you one thing. If you talk to the majority of those affected, I am quite confident that they will tell you it's a lot better than it was.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you for that, Minister.

Mr. Cuzner, I think we have time enough for one last round, all the way around, gentlemen, if we stay to our five-minute limit.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I want to first assure my colleague Mr. Stoffer that I'll be exercising the precautionary principle when I make my statements, because I think, as the minister is finding out today, sometimes statements that are made in this seat might come back to bite you when you sit in that seat.

Not that I would ever, Mr. Minister, want to sit in that seat. I've lived a clean life and a good life, and have done nothing to deserve that. Okay?

That said, I think what the minister is seeing, though, is it's waxing strange on members of this committee who have been here for a number of years, in some of the positions that were taken by the minister when he did sit in this seat. I look specifically at his position on the bottom dragging and the fact that his position on that may be not vicious but certainly aggressive.

I don't think the reality has changed much. You made reference to Mr. Byrne's riding and Mr. Matthews' riding. I think the situation was very similar when it was referred to that the bottom dragging was decimating the bottom floor.

Or even with NAFO and the new-found embrace with NAFO, or the enlightenment, whatever it might be, I know the previous minister embarked on a number of changes, a study and wanting to move forward with a number of changes, and this minister has embraced those changes, but I know the comment was that it was a toothless straw dog that Canada really should not be committed to.

I like the minister a great deal, and I still believe that some positions that were advanced while he was in this seat are still important to the minister, as they are to members around this committee. So I want to look specifically at one issue, and that issue is about fish plants and older fish plant workers.

When we're looking at some of the discrepancies that we've tried to identify, that have been identified around the table today, and new programs and new moneys, is there within these new programs or new moneys a strategy that is set? We understand fully the changes in the fish plant industry. Is there a strategy to deal with further impacts, perhaps closures? Specifically, is there something within that new strategy for older workers?

Is that five minutes? That's about three minutes.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Take your time.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Let me again, for the record, clarify a couple of things. My position on bottom trawling is no different today from what it ever has been.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Chairman, if I might, the question--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

A quick rebuttal.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Okay, with two minutes, though.