Evidence of meeting #30 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was certainly.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Very quickly, on the resource management, can Mr. Bevan explain for us the reduction it shows in the estimates?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
That would reflect the sunsetting of the Marshall program. That is the major component of the reduction for resource management.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, and officials for appearing today.
When we did our study of the northern cod last year, two of the issues that we wrestled with the most were whether we should recommend to the minister of the day recreational fishery for cod, and secondly, whether we should recommend the opening of a limited commercial fishery in the inshore. You and your department have proceeded with both of those, I think.
I wonder if you could give us an update on how you think those have gone, and in particular whether there's any sense that the commercial fishery is threatening the recovery of the cod stock in general.
Conservative
Loyola Hearn Conservative St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Thank you very much for that question. In answering it, I'll answer the part of the question Mr. Manning asked that I didn't get to.
Again it was a unanimous recommendation from the committee, because we believed it was the right and proper thing to do. To me, the summer was a tremendous success. It did a couple of things. It gave us a very good idea of the concentrations of inshore codfish after rebuilding the base stocks. It gave a tremendous amount of people a feeling they hadn't had for years. They could finally get on the water again, where they grew up, and experience what a lot of us have experienced over the years, from the older people--and I've heard from a lot of them--to the very young. Older people said they were so delighted to let their grandson or granddaughter experience what it was like to be on the water and catch fish. These things are very important. But we have to remind ourselves that this can only continue as long as the resource is stable.
We're in the process now of analyzing the information we got on concentrations, size, migratory patterns, etc., in order to see--to answer the other part of Mr. Manning's question--if we can have a similar type of fishery next year. If you asked the Newfoundland members here, they would certainly agree that they got a lot more positive comments from people on this initiative than negative ones.
When we analyze the information we have, we'll know where we're going. We had 100% cooperation. Very few people abused the system. I think we came in under the amount we had allocated. If it turns out to be a failure, the amount was so small that even though it might have stymied growth, or whatever, it certainly wouldn't have done irreparable harm. So we really didn't have too many pangs of conscience over taking the chance on this initiative.
We'll know very shortly if the stocks are growing enough and have grown enough to be able to maintain this type of initiative on an annual basis.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
From a more general perspective, looking at the estimates and the supplementary estimates, if there's anything that concerns me, it's the relatively small amount of money we're spending on the oceans agenda, where the department has the responsibility as one of the departments to proceed with that. There's sunsetting money there as well, so in 2007 and 2008 it looks like a pretty small amount of money to make any kind of progress on the action plan.
I'm just curious about your response to that, and perhaps Sue Kirby's as well.
Conservative
Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I think that's an excellent question. It is a concern. We are trying to move forward with integrated oceans management. It is happening across the country, and there's buy-in from all levels of government, communities, and stakeholders. We have to maintain the momentum.
You correctly indicate that the current funding for phase one of the oceans action plan is terminating. It was $14 million a year for two years. As per some other initiatives, the minister is seized of this one and will be trying to move forward with an initiative to continue the progress being made on integrated oceans management so we'll ultimately achieve it in all of Canada's oceans areas. It is essential, as part of the answer to some of the fisheries challenges and other challenges, as you're aware.
Conservative
Liberal
Bill Matthews Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to welcome the minister and his officials.
In the minister's statement he alluded to the fact that there's been an increase in enforcement staff on the west coast from 162 to 176, and 12 new habitat monitors. So that's an extra 26 positions on the west coast. Then I look at the budgetary chart, at the FTEs, revised for 2006-07 to 2008-09. For 2006-07 you're showing 10,490, going down to 10,447 in 2007-08, and then down to 10,385 in 2008-09. So that's a decrease of 105 full-time equivalents, if I'm reading this correctly: 43 next year, and 62 the year after.
So even though the minister is saying you're increasing your numbers by 26 positions on the west coast, it looks as if you're in a decline across your departmental numbers for the next two years. How do you explain that?
Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Part of the challenge the department has faced for the last few years is actually living within our means while addressing recommendations coming from various sources. Certainly this committee has been quite vocal in making known the needs of the coast guard, the need for fishery officers, the need for science and scientists, and so on. It's a bit of a balancing act to try to move forward in a manner that puts the resources where Canada and Canadians think they should be.
In terms of the specifics of those numbers, we could get back to you with an analysis, but certainly we are trying to increase, for example, fishery officers. That increase in B.C. still has to be followed up with boots on the ground. We've just graduated one class. There are two more groups of fishery officers going through. We would aim for 30 per class. The first element of those will go to B.C. I think the second tranche will go largely to Newfoundland and Labrador.
Very definitely, the transformational funding, the $99 million, is focused on core delivery and not on administration. So an overall number like that could represent reductions in administrative support staff or whatever, but I can give a more detailed analysis of that.
I think we owe Mr. Stoffer an answer to an earlier question on the habitat program. I can tell you what we have increased in B.C. and so on. We have added some fishery officers over where we were going, and some additional habitat monitors in central and Arctic. I think the issue of where the habitat biologist will land, in light of these increases and decreases, is something that we owe you a detailed response on. So perhaps we could go away and come back with a detailed analysis of those numbers.
Certainly, to be clear, the minister's direction has been crystal clear. He wants to see more fishery officers, and he wants to see more science and more scientists, more money on the coast guard and more money on coast guard vessel time. But we have to live within our budget, so there would be some reductions. Actually, in the last three years we've reduced the department in overall terms by more than 300 FTEs to try to move money from salaries to actual service delivery.
Liberal
Bill Matthews Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
Thank you for that, Mr. Murray.
To the minister, in your statement you alluded to the aquaculture infusion of funds in the south coast, to Cooke Aquaculture, by your department and the provincial government, which is tremendous news. I want to thank your department and you for your interest in that.
I know you've been quite involved with Cooke Aquaculture, so I applaud your efforts for a region that is very economically depressed as a result of diminished cod stocks, particularly, but also other diminished fish resources as well. No doubt, this will have a big impact on that region of the south coast, with the closure of the Harbour Breton plant by Fishery Products International, the closure of the Fortune plant by Fishery Products International, ongoing negotiations between Fishery Products International and the FFAW regarding the reopening--hopefully--of the Marystown groundfish plant.
My question is--and I asked you this some time ago--even though we're going to see aquaculture farm fish there, which will make a difference, if indeed negotiations fail--which we hope they don't, we hope they resolve themselves quickly--between FPI and the union, there's a tremendous amount of groundfish resources that are allocated to FPI that have not been utilized for a significant period of time, and really that could complement the farm fish for the communities that have traditionally used this groundfish quota.
So would you share with the committee what your thoughts are on this in view of the length of time it's been since those groundfish quotas were harvested? There doesn't seem to be a resolution. I'm wondering if you could share with the committee your thoughts on this.
Conservative
Loyola Hearn Conservative St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Yes, to a point I certainly can. It is one of the major issues facing the province in relation to utilization of the resource. I personally have said—and rightly so, I believe, up until now—that we were not involved in what was going on. You had negotiations between the company and the union, and we would not interfere. We wouldn't meet or commit anything to either side to give anybody unfair advantage. We told them to get back to the table and work it out. You had the whole process being complicated by the fact that the company is governed by a special act, the FPI Act.
This has gone on for a long time. I will say to you two things. One is that I have been asked to attend some meetings in the next few days, which would bring us into this. I have had, earlier this morning, a lengthy meeting asking these very questions that you're asking. We can't see a resource just sitting there in the ocean.
The one thing I will commit to you is that this resource has been there, I guess for centuries, but certainly for many decades and has been utilized for the benefit of the people along the south coast. We have every intention of making sure they continue to enjoy that benefit, whether there's a deal worked out with FPI or through some other process. But I believe the time has come when we can no longer sit back and let the universe unfold when it's not unfolding; we either have to start creating some momentum or step into the picture.
The thing is that this probably has gone on long enough. I think other players feel the same way, and there are some things happening, but certainly the resource itself will be protected. I can assure you of that.
Conservative
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hearn, I would like to know what you plan to do with respect to three points related to the seal hunt: the quota, that is, the number of seals slaughtered; the abolitionists' current campaign; and the search for a seal-meat market. I think that the industry could absorb an increase in quotas, but the development of the seal-meat market must be examined. In my opinion, that market exists. In fact, when you come to the Magdalen Islands, I will be happy to give you an opportunity to taste this meat, as did members of this committee recently. Seal meat is served smoked as well as in rillettes. It is delicious.
What is your plan on those three points?
Conservative
Loyola Hearn Conservative St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
I'm glad you raised that question, Mr. Blais, because I believe this is another area where our views and our concerns are similar.
In relation to the quotas, do you want me to tell you what I think myself or what is practical? As we speak, we are assessing what happened last year—the change in the climate, etc., and if it had any major effect on the seal herds. We have a long-term plan, which we've basically made public, of certain levels where we would do certain things. In fact, I'm informed there's a meeting in January with industry, and we talk about the quota, the TAC, and all that kind of stuff. So this is coming to the fore.
We have to be very conscious of what's happening. We have a declining fish stock in certain areas. I think the stocks overall have basically leveled off, but in certain areas it's up and down, depending on the statistics you talk about.
Where we see a diminishing groundfish stock in particular, and we see a ballooning predation group, seals in this case, all different types of seal.... There are different problems in P.E.I., where they're having some real problems—and Nova Scotia also—that are complicated by the fact that the seals are in areas where it's difficult to hunt them. I'm seeing seals at the mouths of rivers undoubtedly eating salmon, trout, and whatever.
In my own harbour, if you saw a seal, it was an oddity, and you were calling people to look at the seal. Last weekend, there were 62 sitting on rocks near the mouth of a salmon river, and then there's more. As Morrissey Johnson used to say, they're not eating turnips. We have to be very conscious of that and adjust our quotas to keep the herds in control and in check.
Regarding counterpropaganda, I was in Norway just a couple of weeks ago. Norway is also a major seal hunting country, as is Russia. We don't hear much about them. We're the ones who are centre targeted, particularly in Newfoundland, Quebec, and the Maritimes. We have been working with them, as we have been with the provinces. We met with all the seal hunting provinces to try to coordinate push-back to get the right information out.
I have been in Belgium and talked to parliamentarians there. We had parliamentarians there last week to whom you people spoke. I understand that some people look at things differently. The ones I spoke to certainly did when we finished.
Norway is solidly onside. Iceland is, to a degree; they're more concerned with other mammals, but certainly they are supportive. As with our overfishing, we have to utilize our international friends. Norway is also an major market for some of our products.
In relation to the marketing of the product and research, I totally agree that we have to put more money into research for utilizing the whole animal. Certainly as it comes to the need in relation to the invitation to eat it, I would certainly say that many times in the past it was either that or cod, and sometimes you accept seal as an option.
Yes, we have potential there; it's a matter of zeroing in. But again, I believe you will see some of these recommendations coming out of the summits, because it certainly was an issue in Quebec and Newfoundland.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Thank you very much.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not possible in the future that when you get the estimates and a program is sunsetted, such as the Marshall decision, this could be asterisked on the bottom, so that we would know?
Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
My view is that the frustrations the committee experienced would really be welcomed in terms of improving the document, because the document is produced for your use. If it's not useful, it should be fixed so that it is. We should try to improve the document according to those kinds of comments and the discussions we had a few weeks ago, so that we have discussions about facts. I think that's excellent.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
On the previous question about the MCTS budget showing a fairly decent decrease over the next couple of years, I was wondering if you can explain why that is happening in the estimates.
Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Yes, what you're seeing in the estimates is that we're in the middle of a major capital investment in the MCTS centres to upgrade the equipment and refurbish a number of the sites. What you see in the estimate is those planned capital expenditures, and of course the decrease goes to when those projects will be finished. I'll certainly verify that there are no other factors. My understanding is that it's just the distribution of capital expenditures.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Thank you.
Minister, as you know, you weren't on our committee when we recommended before. You just came in 2000, but we had recommendations. The United States has something called the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which denies us the ability to sell seal products in the lower 48, yet Alaska has allowed their aboriginal people to sell their seal products into the U.S. I'm wondering, has DFO, through Foreign Affairs or through International Trade, had an opportunity to address that situation, which was in our report several years ago, so that we can have a fairer system in this regard?
November 28th, 2006 / 12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Loyola Hearn Conservative St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
I'll let Mr. Bevan or whoever fill you in on something that might have been done, but you certainly reminded me of something.
Over the last few months.... Again, as you know, the House has been open basically since the election of the minority government, and with the challenges we've had in the department, we've been really busy. But we've done a fair amount of international stuff on overfishing in relation to NAFO and in relation to the UN, and on other issues, such as the shrimp tariff, etc., on which, as you know, we got some headway, a 40% increase or so just last week. But here is an avenue that might be well worth pursuing.
Mr. Bevan, you may want to add to that.
