Fisheries Committee on April 24th, 2007

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

Okay. Is it possible, then, to get the written plan of this, including any possible dredging that may have—? I'm sure that was all looked into, and there must be a report on it. Is it possible to get that report? If it is, you can just say yes, but I have one last question to ask of the minister.

There was no consultation with the province and the city on the moving of these vessels. We go back to the lack of consultation on Bill C-45. You, sir, and I were both at the Maritime Fisherman's Union when I asked them point-blank if anybody in the room was consulted on Bill C-45 prior to the tabling on 13 December, and nobody put up their hands.

I've asked PEIFA. I've asked many, many, many groups and individuals across the country over Bill C-45, and I disagree with you that a hoist amendment would kill the bill. I think by not having a possibility to consult with fishermen—because it is their livelihood we're talking about—in order to put the changes in Bill C-45 before second reading—because you, sir, and I both know that after second reading there are certain amendments that cannot be included in a bill.

We both know that. I think that if we're truly here, on opposite political sides, but here for the fishermen and their families, then we should allow fishermen and their families the opportunity before second reading to debate this issue so that we can put in their concerns and their amendments before it goes to second reading. I disagree with you when you say a hoist amendment would kill the bill because I think the opposite would do just that.

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

I would think that somebody who's been in politics as long as you have, Mr. Stoffer, would have a greater knowledge of how this works.

You said that you asked all the people at the MFU meeting if they had been consulted about the bill before tabling and they said no. I agree with that. If you were to ask every Canadian, including parliamentarians, if they were consulted about the bill before tabling, they would say no. Because until the bill is tabled, even my colleagues don't see the bill, nor can I consult.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Minister, let's hurry, though, because we are over time.

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

If you want to talk about what's in the bill and the parameters leading up to the bill, the bill is 139 years of age now, I believe. Also, since 1992, when that bill was first tabled—there were attempts I think on two or three occasions to table it—there were some major discussions involving people around the country. If you ever think we'll get to the day when we'll take every piece of legislation and go out, even after tabling, and talk to every person in the country and get his or her opinion, it's not going to work.

I would suggest to you that the hoist motion does kill the bill, because it means it's taken off the order paper and cannot be reintroduced again during the session. That is actually killing the bill.

The best thing we can do with the bill is get it to second reading in committee where you can make any changes that are necessary in that bill. I think if you ask any good lawyer around, he will tell you that there's nothing you or anybody else—unless it's something specific that people wouldn't go along with anyway—can't change in committee. The Federal Accountability Act, I believe, had 154 amendments, and some of them were pretty heavy stuff. So any changes that anybody has raised with me, in fact, when I've talked to people about their concerns, once they understand what is meant by the terminology and so on, I've run across very few who object. The only people who object are given the interpretations hook, line, and sinker and don't get the chance to find out the truth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Minister Hearn.

We'll go to Mr. Kamp, and we will try to stay under five minutes. The minister did go over in his answer.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister and officials, for appearing. I appreciate your candid answers.

I know that conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat are important parts of your mandate. On the west coast, we've had some concern over a decade or more about the future of the various species of rockfish. In fact, it was that concern that led to the introduction of the groundfish integration proposal. I'm just wondering if you can tell us how we're doing on protecting rockfish and on any other initiatives. And can you give us an update on how you think the groundfish integration program went in its first year and as we go into its second year?

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for the question. Certainly, it's a very important topic, particularly on the west coast. We don't get many questions from that area.

When we came into the department, just a little over a year ago, we were asked to look at a new groundfish integration plan, a plan put together by fishermen themselves—not by politicians and not by the department, but by fishermen themselves, coming together over a three-year period—so they could continue to fish the species they fished ordinarily and not be sidetracked or shut out because of an abundance of some other species, which would mean that the bycatch would be so high that the original fishery would shut down.

Through proper planning, proper reporting, and proper sharing, this has turned out to be a very successful fishery. We do have some detractors—we always will, I suppose—and some with very vested interests, but this has been a major success. Most people did exceptionally well, and we've also protected the rockfish. Mr. Bevan might want to elaborate on that specific area, on rockfish alone.

Does the project have some edges yet? Of course. But we said we would monitor it on a year-to-year basis and make changes during the year. We're finding that people are not frozen out of the fishery, and they are participating in many areas. I have all kinds of correspondence to show that we are doing better than we ever have because of this plan. Still, some refinements are necessary, and we'll always work on that, but we're certainly headed in the right direction.

[David Bevan]

Yes, we did actually see a significant improvement in the performance of the fishery from the point of view of avoiding unsustainable bycatch, and it worked very well from the point of view of making sure that the catches of all species, including rockfish, were well within the safe biological limits and that all catches were documented. That worked very well.

We still have to continue to try to minimize the economic costs of this, but it has succeeded from a biological point of view.

In addition, we have increased the number of rockfish area closures to further protect rockfish in British Columbia waters.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you very much.

I don't know how much time is left, Mr. Chair, but I think Mr. Lunney has a quick question that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

He has a minute and 30 seconds to ask and get his answer.

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

My question is along the same lines of conservation, only with a little different twist perhaps.

There is a lot of concern about habitat on the west coast and habitat enhancement. I'm just looking at the estimates here under the salmon enhancement program,and I see you would maintain a funding of about $29 million. I see under salmon enhancement we're looking at the habitat management funding there as well, environmental assessments and other habitat management, and it's about $23 million and decreasing slightly.

I just wonder, would funding for habitat enhancement programs--a lot of the coordinated groups go on partnerships, shall we say, with local groups for habitat enhancement, and some very good work has been done on salmon enhancement--come out of the salmon enhancement program or out of habitat management, and if so, are we able to maintain and increase some of those good programs? Could somebody comment on that.

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

It does come out of the salmon enhancement program.

And you're right, I think we should give credit to, certainly in British Columbia, the number of groups--not only British Columbia, everywhere, but British Columbia in particular—who over the years worked maybe in their own areas and have all come together. We've done a tremendous amount of work with them, led by one Rick Hansen, who has been front and centre, and a number of other players who have come to the table, former minister John Fraser, for instance, who's been a wealth of experience and advice. We're seeing some major positive changes in protecting the habitat, protecting the resource in British Columbia, and bringing first nations people in as partners in all of this. There's a camaraderie happening that we didn't see in the past. We still have a long way to go, however.

We talked about the environmental process in relation to the habitat in Alberta and the streams and the waterways, and we're talking about habitat protection there.

The new act would give us a lot more clout to deal with some of these things, a lot more flexibility. If we had that, we could do a lot more than we're doing at present, and we could work a lot more with local groups and agencies. We haven't got the power to do a lot of it, as we've been told by the courts. Until we get the new act, we'll just try to do what we can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Hearn.

The final questions will go to Mr. Matthews and Mr. Savage. They're splitting their time.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have one question.

I want to welcome the minister and his officials to committee this morning.

I was just wondering, Minister, when your small craft harbours funding decisions will be announced and communicated to harbour authorities, who have a short season to get the work done in most parts of our country. We need to get our harbours done before the bad weather sets in. So I'm wondering if you can inform us of that.

The second part of my question is not related directly to your department, but while we all know the impact the horrendous ice conditions have had on sealers and their vessels, these conditions have also impacted significantly on crab and shrimp harvesting and processing jobs in plants. I know there's been a request to your colleague for an extension to EI. I'm wondering if you could comment in some way to committee if you're optimistic that we might see an extension to EI for those people affected.

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

On the first question, we have the plan in place now. It's only a matter of getting time to sit down and go over it and announce it. But in order for them to get some work done, you're right, the earlier we can announce it the better.

In relation to the second question, there has never been an extension of EI, certainly not in recent history, I am told. But what has happened is HRSDC or Service Canada, or whatever, in conjunction with other departments, our own and ACOA, I believe, did provide special programs, probably put out through HRSDC. But it wasn't a direct extension.

I've already met with the other ministers who might be involved in such a venture. We talked among ourselves as late as this morning, in fact. We are monitoring the situation, and if necessary, we'll be ready to take whatever action we have to help people who would be deprived.

I guess what we all hope for is that there will be a change in wind directions, the sailors will get back home safely, the fishermen can go fishing, and we don't have to worry about these things.

But we are conscious of it, and in the event we do have to step in, we'll be ready to do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Mr. Savage.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, the recently announced decision to redeploy the vessels from Dartmouth to Newfoundland has had a devastating impact in our community. It has raised a lot of questions about why this decision was made, how it was made, and what the process was for making the decision.

Is it normal procedure to make this kind of move for the coast guard without discussion with the union, without discussion with labour, or even regional management?

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

The decision, the planning, has been on the go since 1997. So I would think there has been a fair amount of discussion and consultation. But the commissioner will certainly be able to outline for you the process, who was involved in the process, and he has outlined, I think twice or three times this morning already, why the decision was made.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Before we go to the commissioner, perhaps I could ask if he could reference this as well. In this business plan, "Safety First, Service Always", the business plan of the coast guard dated April 1, is it mentioned in here? If it's been in the planning stages, I assume it must be. Can you tell me what page that is on in this book?

Maybe the commissioner would be better positioned.

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

The commissioner handles what goes on in the coast guard. I'm sure he can answer your question quite well.

[Commr George Da Pont]

Let me start with the business plan. First of all, it's not in the draft that you have. It will be in the final one. It's not in the draft you have because the announcement had not been made yet, and we had to respect, obviously, announcement timing.

Secondly, in terms of how the decision was made, it was largely made by me, the deputy commissioner, and our director general of fleet. As the minister has stated, I know it's a very emotional and difficult thing to move vessels. It's not something we did lightly, but there had been a number of studies over the past decade on exactly this. The issue had been studied in quite some detail from various perspectives.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

[Inaudible--Editor]—decision?

[Commr George Da Pont]

It wasn't made before for a variety of reasons, but the driver of making it is my desire to get all of coast guard in the Dartmouth area consolidated at the BIO campus. We announced we were getting out of Dartmouth base in the late 1990s. We haven't invested in that facility, and it's not in good shape. The coast guard is scattered over four different locations in Dartmouth right now. Taking the decision on the icebreakers was a necessary first step to get the consolidation plan at BIO moving. That was sort of the trigger to finalizing the plan for wharf construction, and I hope, ultimately, the consolidation.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Wasn't that money budgeted in 2003 to make BIO ready for the icebreakers?

[Commr George Da Pont]

Money was never budgeted. There were a number of plans over the years, and that's part of the problem. Nothing was ever finalized. Nothing was ever budgeted. That's why for me it was a very important priority to get that moving, because as I said, I don't find our state of operations in Dartmouth satisfactory. That was a key decision. Because I want to nail down the money.