Fisheries Committee on Oct. 17th, 2006

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

I will get right to your question and give you an answer.

If you look, last year there was quite a furor when we thought that the then minister had gone to the United Nations and supported a ban on bottom trawling, and I was the one who viciously—if you want to use the word—raised it in the House that we cannot ban bottom trawling. We have never gone after control of the habitat on the nose and tail and Flemish Cap in the sense of our land, which we own, the seabed and the species attached to it. We could have gone to the World Court because people are tearing up our habitat, but we didn't, because if we did it outside, we'd have to do it inside. So my position on bottom trawling hasn't changed.

On NAFO, it was not a toothless straw dog. I think I called it a toothless tiger. It was. It isn't today. It might not have a full set of dentures, but we certainly gave him one set and a few may be underneath, and we're working on the rest. As you see what really happened at NAFO coming out, you'll agree with that.

On fish plants and plant workers, to a large degree I can get out of that pretty easily by saying that fish plants strictly come under the province, and any agreement on older workers or retirement programs, and so on will be their responsibility. But those things don't happen without federal involvement and contribution, as you know.

Our government committed to doing a full assessment of older workers and the impact on older workers, and in fact, plans have been put in place to deal with especially one-industry towns, where the industry has been shut down and the feds will have to come in and help the province. One of the problems, I'll say to you, about older workers in fish plants is that for many of the fish plant owners, the processors, if today you and I were in the position to go out and say, here is a retirement package for anybody over the generally accepted age of 55 in the industry--which, after spending 30 years in cold water every day, most would certainly accept--we would take away the workforce from many of the plants. So there is something there.

That is not an easy thing to work with. Are we working with the provinces on that? Absolutely, and one of the good things coming out of this coming together of provinces, feds, and industry is that all these factors are being looked at, and I think you're going to see in the recommendations that come out of these area reports a positive move towards trying to rationalize industry and help those who need help.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Perfect. Only one minute over. You did very well, gentlemen.

We will give you a gold star, Mr. Cuzner.

Monsieur Blais.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Let's continue handing out gold stars.

I'd like to hear your views on the seal hunt. I know for a fact that you travelled to Europe recently and made some statements about the hunt. However, I'd like to focus on the present, and in particular on the future.

As you well know, a delegation from the European Union will be in Ottawa at the end of November to meet with this committee. However, I also believe the delegation plans to meet with you. There is cause for some concern about this new source of opposition to the seal hunt. The Council of Europe seems to have tempered its initial stand somewhat. The one main sticking point appears to be the use of the hakapik. The Council of Europe is no longer talking about a product boycott. However, it's quite another story over at the European Union.

I'd like to hear what kind of strategy you favour or what your plans are in terms of addressing this matter with the European Union.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Blais and Mr. Chair.

This certainly is an issue that is of concern to a lot of us. Every year, certainly when the spring arrives, the first thing you see before the robins are the protestors getting out there to make sure the money continues to roll in. And again, here is where political divisions.... We might disagree on a lot of things, but when it comes to defending certain industries, all of us are in the one boat. Last year our country stood up against the Paul McCartneys of this world and the Pamela Andersons and the Brigitte Bardots. Some of us wouldn't even meet with them when requested--and boy, I tell you, that was tough.

Seriously, we have to make sure that our side of the story gets out. We have what has been recognized by world-renowned veterinarians as the most humane, best regulated hunt in the world. It is a sustainable hunt. That's the first thing we have to get out there: it is a sustainable hunt.

I use this example sometimes in talking to people. When we had the biggest wild fish stock in the world, the northern cod, we had two million seals. We now have 1% or 1 1/2% of that stock, and we have six million seals, and growing. We are now seeing seals in rivers--in fact, we're seeing them miles up rivers in some cases--and at the mouths of trout streams. Number one, from a sustainable point of view, if we don't control the seal herd, it'll control itself after a while, and we'll have all kinds of problems. So everything we're doing makes sense.

I was in Europe a while ago. I met with the minister in Belgium. He was introducing a resolution to ban seals or seal products. He asked to meet with me; I didn't ask to meet with him. I wasn't aware of it. He asked to meet with me because he was uneasy. He had inherited the resolution and he was uneasy because he was picking up little bits and pieces that there might be another side. This is the guy who said that the only grounds he had to base his resolution on, and the only grounds the people around him had were what they got from the protestors--those videos of guys clubbing little seals, the red blood on the white ice. That's when I came out with the statement that, well, you wouldn't have the freedom to do it if the ancestors of these sealers hadn't left their red blood in Flanders Fields to give you the freedom you have today. That sort of woke him up.

I said that I wasn't going to argue and that I would lay out a few things--sustainability, numbers, etc. But I told him to come to Canada, to come and visit the homes of the people going to the front, to go out with them, and to not look at videos taken around P.E.I. Now that Lawrence is gone, I don't want to be picking on P.E.I. But every time they showed it, they showed them clubbing the whitecoat, which ended 21 years ago, or people out with hakapiks in the small herd where you congregate pretty closely in the gulf. Nobody shows the hunt on the front or off Quebec or certainly in the north.

We as politicians have to talk to their politicians. We have to invite them, as I did, as many as want to come. We'll make sure they see what has to be seen. Anything that any of you can do.... These are the people who vote. We have to deal with industry and whatever, and we need more people involved.

One thing that has happened for this coming year is that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has been meeting with our people already in putting together a unified front. Quebec wants to get involved and will be involved. Nunavut is involved. And certainly, I'm sure, the maritime provinces that are affected will be involved. With a united front, we can get push back--push back on truth and on the facts--and eventually we'll win that battle.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Maybe I'm not asking the question in the right way. If so, I apologize.

I'm looking at page 31 of the estimates, planned spending and full-time equivalents, and I'm taking the science category, for brevity's sake. For 2006-07, science, $152.9 million ; next year, $142.3 million. I have a simple question. Is that a correct estimate, yes or no?

[Cal Hegge]

Yes.

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

So it is going down. Thank you.

I am looking at the human resources for science equivalents: 2006-07, 1,043; 2007-08, 997. Is that a correct estimate, yes or no?

[Cal Hegge]

Not necessarily.

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

As members of Parliament, we get our information from the department. This is, I assume, a well-thought-out, planned document. It's given to members of Parliament, and we then pass it on to the public. People in your department, the scientists, call and tell us they're not supposed to be calling but they have something we ought to know.

So you're telling me that this isn't accurate?

[Cal Hegge]

Mr. Stoffer, what I've said, repeatedly, is that this is accurate based on the information we had at the time. With respect to the FTE reductions, there have been some recent developments that would cause me to say that the figure is not accurate as of today. That's all I'm saying.

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

I'm going to ask Mr. Murray, the deputy minister. Do you concur with that statement, sir?

[Larry Murray]

Yes, I do. This information is accurate when it's tabled, but the government is a dynamic creature. It makes decisions and gives direction. This minister has given a number of bits of direction that impact on what will unfold. In that context, there will be changes in priorities—to science, the coast guard, the $99 million increase we got.

We do the best we can when we prepare this, but the world does unfold. There could be a crisis that drives it in another direction. We're not trying to mislead Parliament. We do the best we can.

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

So for science, the financial estimate is correct, but the FTE is variable. It could change. That's what he said.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Does the minister want to comment on this?

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

Mr. Stoffer, as the NDP, does very well. This will be the first time I've gotten political this morning. But this feeding out facts and figures is causing a lot of concern out there. These are certainly not factual, nor are they based on facts. They're based on a position in time that any of us can change.

Deputy Murray wanted to add something to make sure we clarify that there will not be any cuts in our budget and that we will not have wholesale layoffs, particularly in science. We've added to that part of the budget.

[Larry Murray]

The only rider I would put on it—and I'm not trying to be cute—is that the same rider for FTEs applies to the dollar number. In other words, it's a dynamic scenario. If the circumstances change and if different decisions are taken, then the results will be different from what we see in the report on plans and priorities.

So it was accurate at the time, based on the information—both FTEs and dollars. That has changed and will really be known only when the main estimates get tabled in the February-March timeframe.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Mr. Cummins.

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

Minister, this program was developed by the department and big guys in the industry, by a select group of appointees from the previous government. The program itself is very complex. It was never explained to the fleet. It was never vetted by industry. It was never voted on by industry.

The fact of the matter is that it has hurt the small-boat fleet. I've got a list of boats that weren't even going to bother fishing this year because they couldn't afford it. Boats have been put up for sale because they can't afford to participate.

My question again, Minister, is simple. Have you not been given this information—the complaints, the e-mails, I've received? Why has the department not supplied you with these, and why are they not keeping you fully informed?

Finally, you said to me in a letter of May 19 that all aspects of the groundfish plan would be reviewed, and that you had asked staff to provide you with a monthly update on the initiative's progress. I wonder if you could provide those monthly updates to this committee.

Most important, why has your department not kept you informed?

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

Mr. Chair, that's certainly a very unfair question, because Mr. Cummins has absolutely no idea what goes on in my department. My department not only keeps me informed, but I direct most of what goes on in my department, including several visits to the west coast dealing with this and other issues.

Let's lay the cards on the table, if that's what we want to do. We've had problems on the west coast this year, and a lot of them have been caused by a group of people, involving you, Mr. Cummins, because you didn't like what we were doing with the groundfish integration plan, or our plan to try to bring peace to the Fraser River. And there were a lot of others involved.

We have had contact with small fishermen. We have worked with them. We have had people dealing directly with them to make sure that costs were spread so they could survive in this. We have numerous people who've said that without the changes we made, they wouldn't have survived this year.

I am not going to change because one little sector of one group is upset. We will try to do what we can to help everybody, but we're not going to be blackmailed by a handful of people with vested interests.

Other than that, we will try to manage a very tough department with problems in every single part of the country. But we have used the field--including industry, which was heavily involved in this process. If you or some of the others were not involved, then I blame you rather than them, because certainly the people you talk about.... Mr. Wickham was heavily involved. He came in and nodded his head when the report was presented, then afterwards changed his mind. And there were other people around the table when this happened.

Mr. Chair, I'm not sure where Mr. Cummins is coming from. I know he has concerns; I appreciate it. There are people in this industry who are being hurt every day, but we have done our best based upon what we have. I try to be as hands-on as anybody, on this issue in particular. There probably wasn't a day that went by, not to say a week or a month, when we weren't trying to figure out what was happening here, what changes we have to make. We talked with groups. We talked with individuals. We massaged. We changed. We had people working with industry to spread costs, to get more involved.

If you talk to the people who were affected, the majority of them will tell you it was the best year they've had in a long time. And we have had lists of requests to make sure we continue with this program.

Does it need to be massaged? Certainly. If there's somebody being hurt, will we do something about it? Absolutely. Is the small guy the one we want to push aside? I came from a small boat, and if there is one group we would try to look after, it would be the small-boat fishermen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for your clarity on that issue.

Our last questioner is Mr. Manning.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thought we used to have trouble on the east coast.

I'm trying to work out the difference between answers and speeches here, but anyway, I have a couple of quick questions, Mr. Minister.

Is there any thought being given to an increase in the total allowable catch this year for the seal hunt off Newfoundland and Labrador? Is there any thought being given to not allowing protestors to be out interfering with sealers when they're trying to do their job in a safe manner? That's on the seal hunt.

My last question is on the fisheries summits that you talked about several times this morning in regard to Newfoundland, Labrador, and Prince Edward Island, and one that's planned for Quebec. I know full well that in order to solve a lot of the concerns in our fishery we're going to have to call on provincial and federal governments to come together and work on addressing some of those issues. Knowing our own problems in Newfoundland and Labrador--that was the purpose of the summit--could you maybe give us some enlightenment on exactly what you gained from the summits and where you see them being a possibility to address some of the concerns in the fishery?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Manning.

On the first two questions on the increase in numbers, what we'll be doing is a total assessment of what happened last year, a look at the seal herd in relation to its growth or lack thereof and environmental factors that might have had an effect on the growth of the seal herd.

Again, a number of you have used the term “precautionary approach” today. We have to make sure we do the same thing with the seal hunt. The last thing we want to do is to look irresponsible. The minute we do, then we really play into the hands of the protesters.

What are we doing to keep them from the ice? I've instructed our people and our people who talk to people, the legal people and everything else, that we will use every avenue we can within the law to keep people as far away from the hunt as we can. It is not our decision quite often, however, to allow them within the half-mile, or the 30 feet, or whatever the case may be. These come from Charter of Rights precedents and court cases. However, we will test everything we can test--and I'm sure we have your full support on that--to keep people away from interfering with our sealers.

In relation to the summit, I can truthfully say I have built up a very good relationship with every minister across this country. We've had a number of meetings. There might be one minister, maybe two, I haven't met, but certainly I've met most, if not all, of them, and where I haven't met ministers I've met people in their departments. So we have built up a good working relationship.

The coming together was really started when the Premier of Newfoundland asked if we would co-sponsor basically a major meeting called a fisheries summit to bring everybody, because of desperation.... It's the same desperation Mr. Asselin talked about this morning. I've talked to your own minister, Mr. Vallières, about the same thing, about the need to focus.

The problems are so extensive out there, and I apologize for my reaction to Mr. Cummins, but I appreciate his frustration. They're everywhere, and we're not going to solve them by looking at Ottawa or by sniping at each other. We solve these problems by coming together. The province has a role to play in relation to the processing sector, in relation to everything that affects decisions on the land, the marketing in particular.

We have a role to play. We have to try to make sure that if we're looking at consolidation we give people a chance to get together, instead of having skippers out there looking under bushes to try to get a crew member when the fellow down the road is doing the same thing. Why can't they come together and cut expenses, share quotas? There are lots of things we can do and I assure you we will do. If it means varying boat lengths and stuff like that, we'll look at it. If it means cleaning up the industry, we'll look at it.

Collectively, with industry, with the unions, with the provincial governments, that's where we have to go. Who is responsible for what, and can we all do our part? It worked in Newfoundland. It certainly worked in P.E.I., even though when we met there with New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, and P.E.I. we were more or less zeroing in on the Northumberland Strait issue, where there's been a complete collapse. Quebec has its own problems, and I'm sure coming out of the Quebec meeting we'll have better....

Can we solve all the problems? Of course we can't put fish in the ocean, but as long as there's a certain amount, it can grow if we properly look after it. But we also have to remember that we have people who depend on it. So somewhere in between, we have to try to walk that fine line, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

I much appreciate you and your staff coming in today. I think we had a good and open discussion on all sides, and that's extremely important.

There are a couple of issues here that I'm going to ask committee to stay for.

I have one final question. Actually one of our members, I believe Mr. Stoffer, had asked a question on marine service fees for north of 60, and that's also a motion we're going to deal with here. So I'm wondering if you could illuminate that issue. I think Mr. Stoffer's direct question was that he would ask the government not to apply marine service fees for north of 60. Do you have a position on that?

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

I'm not sure if we've discussed with the north. We are about to make a decision on that. I'll pass it over to Mr. Da Pont. We have had major decisions, but until we talk to the people involved in the industry we work with, we don't like to go out in front and surprise them.

Go ahead, Mr. Da Pont.