Fisheries Committee on Nov. 28th, 2006

[Larry Murray]

I met with the same group. The video is wonderful, and we're working with them to actually provide it more broadly. In terms of the actual protection, we did provide fisheries restrictions in the area in 2002. We expanded it in 2006. We're working with them and others. A marine protected area is one vehicle. There may be other vehicles. The Government of B.C. is involved as well. We agree entirely, and the minister has been clear on the need to protect vulnerable marine areas. We are dealing with that with urgency.

One bit of information that group did provide as well is that there are a number of much smaller coral reefs in the Georgia Strait as well. At the moment we need, with some urgency, to look at those and see if we need to put in some additional protection and do a footprint of what's actually happening in that area in terms of the nature of the activity.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you very much. I'm sure there will be many people interested in our looking at it, especially unique habitat and species. We all have an interest in seeing unique areas protected while we go on with our other activities.

We don't have our regional director for British Columbia, Mr. Sprout, with us here today. Mr. Bevan, perhaps you would be able to help us with this.

I note some concerns specific to my riding--a big run on the Alberni Inlet, both sockeye and chinook. The sports sector is particularly important to this community of Port Alberni. It is one of the salmon capitals of the world, you know. We do have a competing community on the east side of the island, Campbell River, that claims that title as well. The sporties in particular are concerned about the chinook.

This past year we had this big salmon derby, which is a very big economic driver in the community, but the commercial chinook fishery opened prior to the sports one. Frankly, the fishermen were out in those boats with high hopes, and the catch wasn't very good. Even though conservation methods, our targets, were hit, the sporties actually missed their targets by 50% in the last two years, and that does have quite an economic impact. I just wanted you to take note of that. I wonder whether you could look into that at Parliament, whether or not you're taking consideration of that.

Also, they're asking for a multi-sectoral sockeye committee to review the catchments there, because again I think there is a need to look at the escapement targets, which were way beyond what was anticipated.

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

On the chinook and coho, we have a policy that provides the sports fishery sector the priority access on that. We'll have to look into the timing of the fisheries and whether that had a bearing on their ability to access appropriate amounts of fish that are there for the priority of the sports fishery, the recreational fishing sector.

On the sockeye, I'll have to look into that one and get back to you.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Just to let you know on behalf of the constituents, there's a big concern in that particular area. It seems odd that the commercial sector, which gets the lowest value for their fish, would have priority access, as it turned out in this particular case, to scoop so much of the resource when the high-value sector was under-represented.

I just want to put that on the record for consideration.

[David Bevan]

We'll certainly look into it. It may have been a timing issue. The timing of the commercial sector fishery may have been done in a way that ended up removing the opportunity for the sports sector, and we'll have to take a look at that for future seasons.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

I appreciate that, recognizing that the fish aren't always arriving in the time schedules that they used to, and water temperatures influence these things. But it's certainly a factor when the fish aren't where the fishermen are. And they are very restricted in where they can go.

Their request would be that the commercial fishery be withheld till after Labour Day, when they have the big salmon derby. It's a big economic driver in the community.

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

Mr. Chair, there are a couple of little points here that I think we have to be very conscious about. I fully understand that, and we can argue that when we look at the value of the fishery to the country, we look at the value of the recreational fishery. However, there are two things.

Number one, when we're concerned that there might be too many escapements, if we're going to have a fishery of the future, conservation has to come first. If it happens when we break down who got what.... Our first aim in the fishery is conservation. How many fish do we have to leave in the water to spawn in order to build our stocks? That's first. After that, then we have food, social, ceremonial, and then commercial, recreational, etc. However, conservation has to come first, and if we're going to make a mistake, let's make a mistake by leaving a little bit more rather than less, because we'll pay the price down the road.

In relation to commercial versus recreational fishing, this argument goes on. From a purely personal perspective, I come from a family and a boat where you either caught some fish or you didn't eat; it was as simple as that. So we have the commercial fishermen. You can throw names around of international corporations, etc., but generally for the person in the boat catching the fish, that is his only source of living. In terms of the person who comes in and maybe leaves more money in the local town to catch three salmon than this fisherman makes, that's a greater argument.

Until we can find some way for that fisherman in the boat to be able to sell each salmon for whatever value to somebody else...that's pretty hypothetical at this stage. Commercial fisheries exist because for 500 years people have fished in this country and have made a living. If we're going to take that living away from them, somebody had better come up with some good ideas as to what the fellows in the boat are going to do before we start making major shifts in any other direction.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Yes, Minister, I'd be certainly sympathetic to that perspective as well. In this case, we're talking about seiners that are taking large volumes--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Lunney.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

I did have one more good question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Yes, and that's very good, but you'll have to save it till the next round.

I apologize to my committee members. I'm just trying to make it fair for everyone here today.

Mr. Byrne.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to you, Minister, and to your esteemed officials. It's great to have you here. It's too bad that our friend and colleague Mr. Cummins, couldn't be here to liven things up a little bit as well, but I'm sure he'll be back.

But to try to liven things up a little bit, Mr. Minister, I will not direct this question to you, but to your deputy minister.

This committee has been engaged in a serious study on vessel safety and DFO's boat length requirements. We had expert witnesses appear from DFO as well as from Transport Canada on that topic. At the time, we heard testimony that basically there were two separate issues, and while there was some collaboration between Transport Canada and DFO, largely they were not necessarily linked or related and the two departments were acting independently. That was generally the consensus of the testimony that was given. Nine days later we understood, as a result of hearing expert testimony from industry stakeholders in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, that the night before there had been a memorandum of understanding signed between Transport Canada and DFO to collaborate on vessel safety and boat length requirements.

Do you think it was appropriate, Mr. Murray, that this parliamentary committee was not informed that the memorandum of understanding was being drafted or being considered and that its draft contents were not divulged to parliamentary members?

[Larry Murray]

No, I don't think it was inappropriate. I don't know how many MOUs I've been involved with over a 43-year career, but I don't recollect bringing each and every one of them--in fact, I don't remember bringing any of them--to parliamentary committees for approval.

I think the initiative is very--

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

No, I don't think that was the question. It was not about seeking approval; it was about informing the committee, which was conducting a very serious study on the very serious issues of vessel safety, boat replacement, vessel length. At the time that we were conducting a very serious study, obviously Transport Canada and DFO were both in collaboration and discussions in an effort to work together on this. That was contrary to the testimony we were hearing, or at the very least to the spirit of the testimony at the time.

Notwithstanding the fact that you have obviously been involved in many memorandums of understanding, you didn't feel, at the time when a standing committee of the House of Commons was conducting a very serious study on this issue, that you had an obligation or consideration to bring the information that was actually in play and in existence at the time?

[Larry Murray]

We had every intention of keeping the committee in the picture on vessel safety. The minister has been very clear on this. The minister's direction has been very clear to the department that we need to put a focus on this MOU as a direct result of that direction.

The committee's interest in this area has been extremely helpful, but certainly it was not in any way, shape, or form my intention or the department's intention to somehow not inform the committee. In fact, we welcome the inquiry. Every one of the forums that the minister has co-chaired with provincial colleagues for the most part have gotten into this issue of vessel size.

In that context, I think the question of vessel safety is very definitely a question for the minister. He's given very clear direction to the department to move on this, and the MOU is one result of that.

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

Perhaps I can add to that.

This has been an issue coming out of this very committee over the years. We have always argued about restrictions put on boats. All of us have described the different boats going out and their lengths, and all of us have always questioned their safety. We've had a couple of incidents in Newfoundland where certainly the stability was in question.

Now, stability can be in question either because the operators don't know how to properly use it or because the design is wrong. You can argue that until the cows come home. The thing is that we probably have boats going to sea that I certainly wouldn't go across the harbour in, and that's a bit scary.

Having said that, we have been working on that right from day one. In fact, coming out of the summit meetings, we probably would have had something out publicly that we would be talking about today in relation to flexibility, etc. However, in summit meetings, where we're bringing all of industry to the table, it's much better to let them have their spin too than have the made-in-Ottawa solution, even though our solutions are usually made through committees and information that comes from the field.

The MOU you're talking about actually isn't something that was just slapped together because this became an issue. It's been on the go for quite some time. In fact, I had it for some time--

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

I think that's the point, Minister, that it has been on the go for quite some time.

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

--before we even signed off, to make sure that we could all live up to what we were talking about and that there would be cooperation.

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

Minister, I appreciate your candour on the issue and the commitment to keep the committee informed of activities, especially since they've been under way for quite some time, as you say. We certainly appreciate the witnesses presenting us with this information, and with the actual signed memorandum of understanding, as opposed to DFO or Transport Canada bringing anything forward.

I'll go now to a question regarding science--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

We appreciate your getting that out, Mr. Byrne, but your time is up.

We're going to go on to Monsieur Asselin.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Given that we have with us today the Minister and the Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard Commissioner, I would like to take this opportunity to come back to another issue. We spoke about this during your last appearance with us, Minister. You expressed your concern and your good intentions with respect to marine safety.

At the time, I told you that in Havre-Saint-Pierre, a file had been mounted at the request of the fishers' association and that of the administrators of the marina. Fishing vessels in the area of Sept-Îles, Havre-Saint-Pierre and the Lower North Shore start their fishing season on April 1^st. However, the coast guard only becomes operational by the third week of April. That doesn't make sense. The boats go out to sea, the fishermen get ready for their fishing season and yet, the coast guard, that has the infrastructure and the boat, does not have the necessary staff to intervene in cases of emergencies or catastrophes. They are completely absent.

Minister, I have the support of mayors of municipalities, organizations, fishermen, associations and marina people, everyone. There is unanimity. We all know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and that is why we want you to put your words into action. All you have to do is come to an agreement with your Coast Guard Commissioner on that three-week period, in order to ensure the safety of our fishermen and to avoid a catastrophe. If something happens, the department or the coast guard will be responsible.

I put together this file towards the end of the previous government's last mandate. You were informed of this, as was the coast guard and the new commissioner. What we are asking, on behalf of fishermen, of those who can intervene out at sea, is simple. We're not asking for infrastructure, or for additional equipment, but simply that the coast guard be ready to intervene in cases of accident or catastrophes as of April 1^st, that is, when the fishing vessels and fishermen go out to sea. This is simply a budget that would cover three additional weeks of operation.

The current situation reminds me of a municipality that would decide to open one of its public pools on July 1^st but wouldn't hire any lifeguards, those responsible for safety, until July 22^nd. That doesn't make sense.

Minister, you are the one responsible. You talked about safety. Your deputy ministers confirmed that this was one of your concerns. We are simply asking you to direct the people responsible for marine safety in Havre-Saint-Pierre to work from April 1^st to December 1^st in order to be available if necessary. I am asking this of you and I am raising it again at the request of fishermen. No one would want a catastrophe to happen and for the coast guard to be absent simply out of negligence or the lack of a minimal amount of funding.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much.

Let me thank Mr. Asselin for raising that question. Sometimes there are local issues that in the large scale might be overlooked, but to the people in the area they're extremely important. These are the things we should always look at. I presume there is some reason why this is happening. I'll ask Mr. Da Pont if he is aware of the situation.

You mentioned lifeguards at a swimming pool, and the simile is certainly very appropriate. Maybe arrangements can be made to have the parents there to supervise in the three-week interim period. I don't know if there's some other provision, but Mr. Da Pont can probably give us a direct answer. We'll certainly follow up on it.

[George Da Pont]

Thank you, minister.

I am very familiar with this situation. We are trying to find a short-term solution for the upcoming season. Furthermore, we are currently doing a study on search and rescue needs throughout the country. As I have stated a few weeks ago before this committee, I hope to have the results of this study in February. With this analysis and potential solutions in hand, we will examine all those situations that contain shortcomings. Thus, there will be a short-term solution followed by a long-term solution based on the current analysis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Merci, monsieur Da Pont.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Perhaps I could add to Mr. Asselin's--