Fisheries Committee on May 1st, 2007

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Monsieur Blais, s'il vous plaît.

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

I accept your apology and I expect that in return I'll get a little more time.

In terms of licences, for example, for shrimpers, you recently announced a review of licence fees. The relative costs of licences for the various fisheries throughout the country will be reviewed with a view to increasing fairness.

How long will this review take? I have had an opportunity to put this question to several individuals but I have not been given a specific answer to date. The first person to respond to this was from your department. Unfortunately, I cannot recall their name. The statement was made during a radio interview in my riding. The individual stated that the review would take two to three years.

Had I been standing or sitting down at the time, I would have fallen over. That doesn't make any sense. This situation, especially that of Quebec shrimpers, has been known for a very long time. I would like you to tell me how long the review will take.

[Larry Murray]

The review doesn't take very long but finalizing the results can take two to three years, yes. Unfortunately, that is the case.

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

You understand that this makes no sense. I'll explain why. If I were to ask you about something today, I understand that this would trigger a process that would take some time. However, we are talking about licence fees and the cost to Quebec shrimpers. I'm giving you one example but there are others. From what I understand, this request was made two years ago. I repeatedly raised this issue last year. We met with department officials and the minister to discuss this situation. The time this is taking is unacceptable because the situation is not new. The problem is well known.

What could possibly justify a two- to three-year time frame? And can you give me reason to hope that this review will proceed more quickly?

[Larry Murray]

I would like to say that it will, but to be honest, the reality is that this will take two to three years. I'll call on Mr. Hegge to explain why. There is new legislation and that makes a complex situation even more complex.

[Cal Hegge]

As the deputy minister stated, the review itself doesn't take long but under the new User Fee Act we are obliged to consult extensively, to hold discussions with clients, to undertake comparisons, even with other countries. That takes time. For example, if we want to adjust the fees, then we have to wait two to three years to implement those changes given that there have to be consultations.

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

Yet the situation is so urgent that we may end up finding a cure to the disease once the person is dead. I'm using an analogy. However, by the time we have a solution, there may be no shrimpers left, because they're going to disappear one way or another. In the end, jobs will be lost. That is why I am looking for an immediate solution. I understand that the process is long, and that it is relatively complicated, but at the same time there are shrimpers who wonder year after year if they will be able to take their boats out. This is a terrible worry for people who make a living from this industry, and who work in processing plants. That is the situation. If the administrative response is too long in coming, then there should at least be a way of sparing those people who are affected by the fact that the review takes too long. I imagine that personally, you would like to solve this issue here and now but that there is a process you are required to follow. Given the circumstances, I'm looking for an immediate solution.

[Larry Murray]

Thank you. We share your concerns. Fortunately, the price of shrimps went up this year. From what I understand, our fees are 3¢ cents a pound. Previously, in Quebec, the price was of shrimp was 38¢ a pound; it is now 49¢. In Newfoundland, apparently the price ranges between 50¢ and 57¢ a pound. That's why I think that this year, the problem is being resolved. However the minister has asked us to continue looking into the particular circumstances of the Gulf shrimpers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Murray.

In a magnanimous display of goodwill, I'm about to give Mr. Stoffer seven minutes and Mr. Casey seven minutes, because everyone else has taken that much, and then we're going to try to go back to five minutes, gentlemen.

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

It must be my birthday or something. Thanks very much.

I also wanted to say to the members of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that once in a while this committee does get together and do something that's pretty significant. I've been here since 1997, and we've done 26 reports, I believe, 21 or 22 of them unanimous.

At a press conference the other day the Chair introduced the new seal harvest plan. One of the concerns we're hearing is that in Europe, countries such as Germany are getting a tremendous amount of pressure from various organizations such as the animal rights groups in the United States and IFAW. They're putting in significant concerns to harm, really, our seal harvest in Canada, and the harm is especially to our first nations and Nunavut sealers.

When they were here before the committee, the Nunavut people said very clearly that you can't separate the two of them. If you put a ban on sealing products and a ban on seals, then you affect their culture and their way of life.

I know it's too early to offer any questions regarding the recommendations. I basically wanted to let you know that you have another tool in your tool box, and we would encourage everything possible that the government could do, working through your agency and other groups like foreign affairs, to promote and enhance our seal harvest capabilities on the Atlantic coast.

[Larry Murray]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I know the minister would want me to express his heartfelt thanks to the committee for the great work that the committee has done in relation to the seal hunt. He would agree with everything Mr. Stoffer just said, and I know he looks forward to the report, but before the report came the effort of the committee in getting European parliamentarians here and telling them like it is and the effort of the committee in going out and visiting the hunt, and those efforts the minister really appreciates.

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

May I also ask that if there are more continual delegations coming from Canada to Europe, would it be possible to have the cost paid for Nunavut sealers and Nunavut people to go with you to tell their story? They have a remarkable story to tell, and if European parliamentarians heard more of their culture and way of life, maybe they would have a change of opinion on this issue.

[Larry Murray]

I think the minister would heartily endorse that as well. In fact, I was at a meeting at which he met with the Premier of Nunavut, who went on the last trip with Ambassador Sullivan, and certainly the presence of the Premier and folks from Nunavut was really important in bringing some reality to this. I know the minister would consider that recommendation quite favourably.

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

On a different tack, in 2004 the Fraser River fishery wasn't a banner year for everybody, to put it mildly, and those runs--or lack of runs--may be coming back in 2008.

We were supposed to have an inquiry. I remember the Prime Minister saying there'd be an inquiry on that issue. I still haven't seen it; I suspect we're probably not going to get one.

That's not that far away, and I'm just wondering what plans or measures are being taken now to address the concerns of the fishermen and people who will be affected by what may be a very poor year for 2008.

[Larry Murray]

In fact 2007 will be much more challenging than last year as well, but 2008-09 will be more challenging than 2007. I'll ask Mr. Bevan to speak about the plans for this year and the continuation of our go-forward for Pacific fisheries reform.

[David Bevan]

We have enhanced the enforcement presence on the Fraser River. We are looking at changes to the fishing process this year. Changes would include better monitoring, control, and surveillance of both the commercial and the first nations fisheries; an attempt to negotiate with first nations on the amount for FSC, with a separate amount for their commercial; and having both the commercial fishery and the aboriginal commercial fishery subject to the same kind of monitoring, control, and surveillance, as well as the same landing requirements and reporting requirements.

Those initiatives are under way in consultations and negotiations with first nations as we speak, and we will see how that unfolds. We are expecting to have some fish come back for the commercial fishery this year. The amount will remain to be seen. The 50% probability is around 6 million; the 75% probability, the amount you'll probably get 75% of the time, is about 3 million.

We have had some difficult oceanographic conditions and we had a very strange herring season this year, so there's an indication that the oceanographic conditions and the productivity in the north Pacific haven't been normal. We'll have to see what that does to runs this year.

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

This is my last question for you.

There are demands on our oceans, and not just from the fishing industries. There are demands to have marine parks, demands for seismic testing and oil and gas exploration, and so on. I noticed, from the Library of Parliament, in the estimates for 2006-2007, that oceans management is $33.1 million, but in the main estimates and the adjusted ones for 2007-2008, it is $21.2 million, which is a reduction of $11.9 million. I'm just wondering if you can explain, with all the demands on our oceans and with the need for more information and better enforcement and habitat protection and so on, how there can be a justification of the loss of almost $11.9 million for that particular aspect of your department.

[Larry Murray]

Thanks very much for the question.

In terms of the reduction, I'll ask Mr. Hegge to respond, perhaps more accurately. But it reflects a change from the ocean action plan phase one funding, which was about $14 million a year, to the announcement in the budget of a number of health-of-the-ocean initiatives at, I think, $19.2 million over two years, which is some $9 million a year. So there is a reduction.

That being said, we were pleased to see the elements announced in the budget for health of the oceans. And that includes continued funding for marine-protected areas and for some issues that I know have been of great concern to this committee--ballast water and so on and so forth.

Certainly within the department, as well, we are looking at what we have done on integrated oceans management in five large ocean management areas, and we are striving internally to ensure that we don't lose momentum in that area. In terms of bilateral relationships with the Americans, I think it continued funding for the work that has been going on in the Gulf of Maine.

So although the overall numbers went down, in the areas that have been highlighted in the question, there is money there. Certainly the program does have momentum and it does have an absolute need to continue to move forward, because it's part of the answer to the fishery. It's part of the answer to a lot of things. We're taking an ecosystem approach, and an integrated oceans management approach is what's required.

I would also say that the provinces are there. British Columbia has reorganized for this. Newfoundland is there, in the same sense. So we're working very closely with provinces. In terms of the funding, we'll certainly take maximum advantage of the new funding we have. We will look carefully at our A-base to ensure that this priority gets the attention it needs, to the best of our ability.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr Murray.

We'll go to Mr. Casey.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thanks very much.

I have an issue I want to put on the radar screen. I don't know if you're familiar with it or if you have an answer, but I mostly want to make sure it gets on the radar screen.

I have an aquaculture project in my riding that is a complete aquaculture project. I'd say it's state of the art. It has 20 tanks, and it's empty. It's being held up for approval from DFO for a licence in Debert, Nova Scotia.

Some of the problem, I think, is because Nova Scotia does not have a containment policy yet. New Brunswick does. If it were in New Brunswick it could go ahead, but in Nova Scotia they don't have a policy. DFO does play a role here, because they license it.

It has just been an incredibly frustrating process. Every time I call, the meeting that was supposed to take place didn't take place. The inspection that was supposed to be done wasn't done. The report, when I called last week, is held up because somebody is off work. But meanwhile, the proponents have these empty facilities and can't get an answer. This has been going on now, I think, for five or six months.

I don't know how much of it is the responsibility of the provincial fisheries department, but I would just ask you to make an inquiry and find out if there's anything more that can be done, just to treat the people fairly, the proponents who are sitting there with an empty facility and going broke while people are, I feel, not putting a focus on it.

Does anybody know anything about that?

[Larry Murray]

Yes. Perhaps I will just give a quick answer.

Certainly I'm aware of it. I became aware of it when I met one of the people involved in it in P.E.I. at a separate thing a couple of weeks ago. The minister, thanks to the honourable member's intervention and my conversations with him, is aware of it.

Certainly we're fully engaged in trying to figure out how to move this thing forward. I would say that the complications that have been mentioned.... I'm not sure where the challenge is, but one other challenge that's in play is species at risk and no impact on Atlantic salmon. That's part of this. So we're trying to figure out how to work our way through it.

Everybody is fully engaged. And I thank the honourable member for his engagement on this file. Certainly we're working on it, and we'll keep the honourable member in the picture as we land somewhere, hopefully positive, and hopefully soon.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you very much.

Well, we'll go on from there.

The other side of my riding is the Northumberland Strait. In that area, we've seen an incredible decline in the lobster stocks. Fishermen there have gone to work in Alberta in the oil fields to help pay their grocery bills and buy their fuel for their fishing boats.

I notice in the notes here that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has recently announced several significant amounts of research money--$61 million, and a little while ago $39 million. Is there a focus on the problem in the Northumberland Strait, where the lobster fishery has virtually evaporated?

[Larry Murray]

There is indeed a focus. In fact, among the various summits that the minister has co-chaired with various provinces was one in Charlottetown--I forget when, but a few months ago--co-chaired between the provincial minister and our minister, and the focus was the Northumberland Strait. A fair amount of work on the science side had been ongoing but got a real focus coming out of that, and a number of working groups have been formed and are reaching the point of making recommendations. I suspect there will be a continued focus on science, because it has a lot to do with things besides fishing, whether it's runoff from agriculture, golf courses, or whatever. So there's a fair amount of work going on. There is a focus on it.

I might ask, David, if you want to talk a little bit to the detail, and maybe Wendy has something to add too.

[David Bevan]

There has been a real problem with siltation, and there could be some fishing causes, such as scallop dragging. There's more to it than that, obviously, and that doesn't therefore lead to one's having a very simple solution.

There are lots of discussions under way right now. They'll be coming out with recommendations some time in the next number of months that will then allow for a response from governments and from the industry to the crisis that exists there. There may be some response relevant to the ecosystem, but there also has to be a look at the way we manage fisheries in this area, given what's happening. It's no longer the case that a very small area relative to the total Atlantic used to support a very large number of fishing enterprises way out of proportion to its size. We're going to have to look at what kind of response we can look at with the fishermen and with the provinces involved.