Fisheries Committee on Nov. 28th, 2006

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

You may not have to wait because I'm going to follow up on this issue myself.

I'm part of the new generation, so to speak, involved with the small craft harbours file. There are two issues I would like to raise with you, first, the small craft harbours situation and, second, your disappointing performance at the Forum québécois des partenaires des pêches in Quebec City last Friday.

A motion dealing with the small craft harbours budget was unanimously passed by the House of Commons. The motion acknowledged the necessity of substantially increasing the budget for small craft harbours. I thought you would catch the ball running and that the supplementary estimates that were recently announced would include that yearly minimum of $35 million passed by the House of Commons. I would say that I was surprised but not really. Regardless, you could have seized this opportunity. Those kinds of opportunities do not occur very often, to my knowledge.

Could you begin by telling me why you did not catch that ball running and then tell me what your intentions are with respect to this file?

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

I am well aware of Mr. Blais' interest in the small craft harbours program from being on the committee with him. Certainly from every meeting I attended, whether we're talking about small craft harbours, whether we're talking about fish generally, or whether we're talking about chicken farming, Mr. Blais will bring in the wharf, as he should, because he represents a fishing area.

In relation to Quebec, I would say to him that the meetings were set up in Quebec by the minister of fisheries from Quebec. He did a tremendous job, Mr. Chair, and we had a great meeting.

The meeting was not set up for me or for the provincial minister to go and give out a pile of information to solve all the problems. The meeting was called so that industry, everybody involved, would come to discuss openly the concern, the challenges that we have to face, and to go forward so we would have input into what needs to be done to outlying areas where expenditure will be needed, to outlying areas where we can consolidate, where we can improve, where we can collectively come up with an ocean-to-plate strategy. So it wasn't the time to go in to make any announcements.

Let me say in relation to the funding—and I might come back to Mr. Cuzner's answer—we are well aware, and nobody is more aware than I am, of the need for investment in small craft harbours. We are, like every other department, working on putting our requests forward for funding. Are we going to consider looking for more money for small craft harbours? Absolutely. Yes, we are. Will we get it? We're quite confident that we'll get more money; we have to. We can talk about the fishery, we can talk about the market, we can talk about harvesting, we can talk about processing, but you're not going to get out to catch a fish if you don't a wharf to leave from. So we have to be sensible there.

Consequently, Mr. Chair, yes, we are not at all forgetting the fact that the small craft harbours program is an important section. Nor are we forgetting the fact that not only does it have to be maintained.... If we're going to just maintain what we have, enhance, and if we're going to be able to set a framework to operate what we see as a solid base for a solid industry, then infrastructure has to be looked upon as a key component, and that is generally where we're headed.

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

Minister, what amount do you intend on requesting for small craft harbours?

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

I think I will ask the officials to talk about the budgetary process. As the estimates and the budget unfold, certainly that answer will be quite clear, but somebody might want to explain the technical side of going forth on this.

[Larry Murray]

We would need to prepare a submission. The submission would express estimates. The estimates that were given last week are the department's estimates of what is required to run a program of 750 core fishing harbours, plus seven new harbours in Nunavut, and to effect divestiture of the harbours that need to be divested within a five-year period of time, a reasonable period of time.

As I said last week, the overall number there--and I'll try not to confuse numbers--is the $20 million continuation. It would be $35 million on top of the $20 million, so that's $55 million a year ongoing; and $82 million is our estimate of the money required to do a divestiture within a five-year period. In the joint study we did with Nunavut, I think the number was about $40.8 million for seven critical ports in Nunavut. These numbers may be changing somewhat, because the construction costs and so on are escalating, but the departmental estimate of what's required would be the same numbers as last week.

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

I don't want to start an argument over numbers; however, the situation has to be clarified. Minister, I would like you to tell me out loud whether or not you agree with the financial goal that was set for small craft harbours, that is, $470 million, and that was based on 2005 estimates.

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

The estimates are put forth, Mr. Chair, simply because we figure this is what it will take, as the deputy just mentioned, to do the job that has to be done--to keep what we have and to enhance that in accordance with the resolution passed in the House, while also looking at the fact that we have a number of wharves that have to be divested. We also have the Nunavut aspect.

That's the kind of money we need; that's the kind of money we're going after. It'll be a government decision as to within what timeframe we can achieve that, realizing not only within government but also within our own department that there are other requirements and that we have to balance it within the total budget.

I mentioned we need the wharves to go fishing, but it's not much good having a wharf if you can't properly harvest, process, or sell your product, so we have to look at it all in a total mix.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Minister Hearn.

Mr. Stoffer is next.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Minister and staff, for appearing before us today.

The other day this committee moved a report that was then passed by the House of Commons. It was to the effect that marine service fees for north of 60 degrees north latitude should be immediately removed. Mr. Minister or Mr. Da Pont, has your department instructed Transport or whoever to remove those fees immediately?

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

The instruction hasn't been given at this stage. The resolution passed in the House and undoubtedly is moving through the system; sooner or later it will come to us to be dealt with.

Mr. Da Pont might want to add to that.

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

Thank you, Minister.

As I think the committee is aware, we're engaged in discussions with industry throughout the country, including the north, on the future of marine service fees. Those discussions are going quite well. We're hopeful we can get an option that'll be acceptable to all concerned. That, at the moment, is the vehicle we're using to address the concerns of the northerners as well as those in other parts of the country.

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

Thank you.

Could you please, Mr. Da Pont or Mr. Minister, comment regarding the status of the recapitalization of the fleet? We've understood there are x dollars going into it.

Mr. Da Pont, when you were before us last time, you indicated that the vessels for the coast guard replacement--which the previous minister, Mr. Regan, had talked about--would be built in Canada. We're just wondering if you could tell us the status of the process now. In other words, where are we at this stage?

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

George.

[George Da Pont]

There are two separate projects. One is to procure eight midshore patrol vessels. The request for proposals for those vessels was in fact issued, I believe, two or three weeks ago, and if the process unfolds as anticipated, I expect that we'll enter into a contract relatively early in the new year. And we're still hopeful that the delivery of the first vessel will be in late 2008 or early 2009.

The other project is for the replacement of the two offshore science vessels. That one is getting close to the request for proposals being issued. I'm hopeful that will happen in the first few months of next year, with a contract before the end of the year. Again, we're still very hopeful for delivery of the first of those vessels in late 2011 or early 2012, as we had anticipated.

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

Thank you.

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

Mr. Stoffer, just to add to that response to your question, anything we build will be built in Canada unless the people who build boats say to us they can't build it.

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

That's very good to hear.

Minister, as you know, the Prime Minister in a previous discussion indicated that there would be an inquiry on the 2004 season on the Fraser River. This would obviously involve your department quite extensively. I'm wondering, when could the people of B.C. expect that inquiry to take place?

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

Again, it was a call by the government more so than our department, as you know. What shall I say? The initiatives that have to be taken to put it together have already started. The wheels are turning within government. I understand they're looking for an independent judge or chair--I'm not saying that all judges are not independent--a judge who could do the job.

From our own perspective, we will be involved, and heavily. We have a lot of other things on our plate, so if you ask if we're sorry it's dragging a bit, not with all the other issues we're on, because it would take of course a lot of time and attention.

We have had two studies since that was first talked about also, our own on the standing committee and the Williams study. But it was a commitment by government. It has been put into action, and when the announcement will be made I really can't say.

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

Thank you, sir.

And when--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Quickly, Mr. Stoffer.

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

Mr. Sprout was before us before and we showed him estimates that showed a reduction over two years of 45 habitat enforcement officers on the west coast. He indicated that indeed this was going to happen.

I'm wondering, your overall budgetary process shows a $200 million decrease overall in DFO spending. Can you explain to me why, in the advent of more critical information and everything else, that even Mr. Sprout agreed there will be a reduction of 45 habitat officers on the west coast? I'm wondering how DFO can justify a reduction of that many people, plus the appropriate budget reduction, when in essence we need more enforcement and habitat protection in order to protect the vital resources of the west coast.

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

I think you will see--and again I'll ask one of the officials to give you the breakdown and the numbers--that if you look at actually what has been happening, it's been the complete reverse of that. We added a number of new enforcement officers this year, as well as adding a number of new habitat enforcement officers.

Mr. Bevan, is it that--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Minister, perhaps Mr. Stoffer could pick up on that in his next round of questioning.

Mr. Lunney.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And again, welcome to the minister and officials to the committee. We certainly all appreciate your being here to address the concerns of the committee and the community, which is very much engaged in our oceans and fisheries issues.

I am glad personally, Minister, to hear that we're investing more money in science. There is a desperate need in that area, and I understand there is about a $15.5 million increase in investment in that area, and there is an increased investment in habitat and enforcement, which we feel is extremely important.

I personally like to see the habitat improvements that we've had in our area. Some salmon enhancement programs we've been having have been very good in improving returns to local rivers and streams, so we appreciate the participation of DFO in those projects.

And also the investment in small craft harbours is appreciated, because we certainly have big needs in that area after 30 years of infrastructure being let go.

In the science area, a question that has come up recently involves marine protected areas. I and someone from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society who was visiting the Hill recently had a meeting in my office with a Dr. Manfred Krautter concerning a rather interesting discovery of a type of glass sponge that is unique to the west coast of Vancouver Island and the coast of British Columbia. I wonder, in the discussions about marine protected areas, is the department looking at the glass sponges and the uniqueness to the coastal area and how that might impact our programs regarding both the fishing activities and the marine protected areas that are under discussion?

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

Mr. Chair, again through you to Mr. Lunney, I thank you for the question.

Habitat is extremely important and becoming much more important. I think with the new bill, when it's tabled, you will see that a lot of attention is being paid to habitat and the ability to be able to work with many others or have much more freedom to work with others.

I've been meeting with most of the provincial governments throughout the country and the ministers involved--the ministers of environment, fisheries, water, stewardship, etc. Everyone has major concerns about habitat. We have been working with our own Department of the Environment federally, with Natural Resources, etc., but also with the provinces to talk about coordination--eliminating duplication, eliminating costs, eliminating timeframe, i.e., waiting for somebody else to do what you would probably be doing yourself again afterwards. We are talking about proper coordination to bring people around the table to save time, effort, money, and get a lot more done.

In relation to the marine protected areas, again, with the ones we have been involved in, response has been phenomenal. However, it can't be done with the heavy hand of government just coming in and drawing circles, as might have been tried sometimes in the past where we got a lot of push-back from the local people and fishermen, etc. These have to be done in consultation with the local areas and based on good scientific advice.

We are all for protecting the habitat. We talked about that even at the international level. However, we also must remember that we have people who make a living from the marine environment, and there has to be a balance. It's great to say that the easiest way to protect the ocean habitat is to close everything down, but that would certainly affect an awful lot of people and an awful lot of communities and the economic future of the country. What we try to do is work with the groups, the agencies, the communities of interest involved.

On the one on the west coast, the glass sponge reef has certainly come up, and maybe somebody can give us more specifics. Mr. Murray has some more specific information on that.