Fisheries Committee on May 1st, 2007

[David Bevan]

We're in the process of sending out letters to all the licence-holders. Those letters will have a form that will be an attestation from the fishermen that they're not subject to a controlling agreement. They'll have to make the declaration to a person who will be designated as a fishery officer. The declaration has to be accurate. Otherwise, an individual making a false declaration to a fishery officer could be subject to legal action.

There will also be consequences in terms of flexibility for people who are in controlling agreements. The licence can't be transferred, except to an independent core fisherman. Anybody who makes a false declaration, and we find out about it after the fact, would be subject to actions that could include not having the licence continue to be issued.

There are a number of steps that are now being outlined to fisheries. We can bring some of those packages to the committee for your information next week.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you.

Mr. Lunney.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question goes back to what Mr. Kamp raised earlier on gravel extraction in the Fraser River. It was obviously a really big concern, with the snow pack in the mountains of British Columbia this year. It looks like the weather is going to be coolish for the next two weeks. That's good news.

On the issue of gravel extraction and the MOU, earlier you mentioned a memorandum of understanding and an issue of economies.

I understand that Mr. Cummins and the department had advised there was a company willing to extract the gravel with barge-based equipment for the value of the gravel. It might have relieved some of the pressure on the water coming down the river. Obviously, if we don't go down to make room for the water, it's going to come up, and we could have problems with flooding.

Could you comment on that? Has the department considered whether or not the value of the gravel itself might have covered the cost of extraction?

[Larry Murray]

To be clear, Mr. Chairman, our role in this is really related to our role around habitat protection.

On our engagement or our involvement in this, the committee may recollect that last year there was a problem with a structure that was put in place on the Fraser River. It was a fairly detailed study, and a number of salmon were lost. We did a very detailed review of this. This issue plays out both around the habitat side and the flood side of it, and my comments on the economics may have been confusing.

What has driven whether or not the gravel gets removed to date has been on whether or not it is an economically viable proposition for the gravel remover, whether it's the contractors or the first nations who pay for the gravel extraction to achieve some level of profit by removing the gravel. From our perspective, our concern is merely that the technical protocols are in place and that the amount of gravel being removed in a particular location doesn't pose a major habitat problem.

Our role in this is to ensure those protocols and those processes are in place so that we in no way impede the timely removal of gravel should the province or in some cases the cities decide to proceed with gravel removal. We had a meeting with the province this year. There were concerns about this, and we were pretty sure we hadn't held anything up, but we went back to square one and went through it all again.

My point is that this year I think we had provided approvals for up to 800,000 cubic metres, but I wouldn't mind checking that number.

My point is that our role in this is to ensure the process is done in a timely manner so that the gravel can be removed. The economics of it is usually between the province and whoever is removing it.

My point on the economics of it is that if this is actually all about flood control and not about whether or not somebody can make money removing gravel, then it would probably be a good idea to sort it out. If the gravel needs to in fact be removed for flood control, among the various levels of governments involved, we can sort it out so that the gravel is removed and whoever is removing it makes money, whether a portion of it is from the gravel or a portion of it is because the gravel has to be removed.

Having said all that, as I said, you have to remove an awful lot of gravel to have an impact, based on my layman's understanding, versus dikes and that kind of thing. I think we need a flood control plan. Certainly I know our department and the federal government would then respond in a meaningful way to whatever needs to be done for public safety.

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

Actually, it has been a problem that's been going on for years. I certainly hope we get a plan and get it implemented tout de suite, because it's not going to look good on us if we end up with flooding.

I want to move on to another issue, and that is the review of chapter 4 of the Auditor General's 2007 status report on managing the coast guard fleet and marine navigational services. We're talking about navigational aids, the right mix of aids, with new aids coming in and traditional aids.

I'm looking at the budget item, the line item. It is $95 million for Canadian Coast Guard aids and waterway services. I see that for 2007-08 it is at $95.3 million, dropping in the next year to $90.7 million. Where we are on the coast, there are foghorns and there are lights, the traditional aids, there. Frankly, in view of some people using GPS, that doesn't always work. Does the department have a position on how we are going to manage this? Are we going to maintain both traditional and the newer systems? How will we be managing that?

[Commr George Da Pont]

That's an excellent question, because that has actually been our challenge with different users being at various different stages in terms of their adaptation to new technology. We are in the situation now, and will continue to be in the situation for a while, of having to manage more than one system through the transition.

Our challenge, as I think the committee knows and as the Auditor General noted, is we have had significant difficulty being able to discontinue some types of services and some types of aids that in our view, quite frankly, no longer contribute at all to safe navigation, issues of foghorns, issues of staffed lighthouses or things that this committee is very well aware would fall into that category.

What we have done is to launch a program that we're calling aids to navigation for the 21st century. We announced that in January. A part of that program will be to develop a vision for electronic navigation. We have a pilot under way now in the St. Lawrence on that issue, but we hope through that to develop a longer-term vision and to engage the various users of our services in it.

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

It's an important issue, certainly, in coastal areas.

I have a quick question on aquaculture--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Excuse me, Mr. Lunney. You were out of time on your last question in the five-minute rounds.

Mr. Simms.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Five minutes, is it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

It's 4 minutes and 59 seconds for you, Mr. Simms.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Understood. I deserve that.

I have two questions. The first one deals with the fact that we have a heck of a situation off the northeast coast of Newfoundland, as you know. I would, for the record, very quickly congratulate Mr. Da Pont and your department for the fantastic job the Canadian Coast Guard did for the trapped sealers off the coast.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Indeed. They were quite exemplary in their professionalism and in their jobs. Please pass on my congratulations.

The other issue at this point is that we have the crab season open in northeastern Newfoundland and we have a big problem with the ice. As the coast guard points out, it is the worst they've seen in over 15 years. In the past there has been a precedent to extend EI claims. I know it is not your department, but there was some involvement, from what I understand, with DFO in the past about extending EI claims for fishermen affected by the amount of ice.

Do you have any comment on that?

[Larry Murray]

Maybe a couple of quick comments.

It might be useful for the committee, George, if in 15 seconds you want to outline the situation on the northeast coast now and the number of vessels still....

[Commr George Da Pont]

The situation in terms of the numbers of vessels that are beset has improved considerably. As of this morning we only have seven, and we expect in the next day or two to free all of those vessels. We expect it will still be at least a couple of weeks before that ice breaks up. The winds haven't been in our favour in the last two or three days, but they've shifted again. I would hope that within a couple of days there will be no more vessels beset.

[Larry Murray]

We still have five of our vessels there.

In terms of the question on EI, I think the honourable member has discussed this with the minister as well. Certainly the minister has instructed us to work with other involved departments on this, and we are doing a fair amount of leg work.

The precedent referred to was 1991, when ice actually lasted into the June timeframe. It apparently wasn't EI, although it was administered by HRSD, or HRSD was involved, so certainly it's understandable in the minds of fishermen and so on that there is some confusion. It was called ice compensation. We are basically working with other involved departments whilst keeping an eye on the weather and the ice and figuring out at some stage of the game if this is the same as 1991 or not. But as I said, in 1991 the letters and so on from the minister of the day indicate it was in early June, I believe.

In any case, people are working on this so that the government would be in a position to respond should that be necessary.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Wasn't there something in 2005 as well?

[Larry Murray]

I don't think so. In 2003 there was some discussion of this, because I came back to the department in 2003, and then the ice cleared. As you said, the ice is still there, and we'll see what happens in the next week or two.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Switching gears for a moment to the freshwater fish marketing issue, I'm a little confused. There was an article a while ago about the Treasury Board being compelled to do a study on the dual marketing issue--whether it's single-desk or dual marketing.

We had some input from the Manitoba Commercial Inland Fishers Federation about one species remaining single-desk and other species not. There seems to be a bit of angst toward the system. On the other hand, there are others who fully support single-desk. And we can play the on-the-other-hand game all day.

I just want to clarify the situation with Treasury Board and their study.

[Larry Murray]

The study is part of a broader Treasury Board initiative, and it happens to be playing out coincidental with the minister going to that neck of the woods and hearing from a variety of stakeholders in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I think the debate within the industry there isn't dissimilar to what's playing out on the coast. It's the high dollar, high fuel costs, and those kinds of things. Understandably, the folks there are saying, “If we could market elsewhere, could we make a better go of it?” In any case, the minister listened to all those folks and agreed....

I should also say that the FFMC is a federal-provincial institution, not a federal-only institution, so whatever we do has to be done in cooperation with the provinces.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Does it have corporation status?

[Larry Murray]

It's a crown corporation. This has to be looked at, but as the minister mentioned a week or two ago in the media, this is about figuring out how to make the FFMC the most effective organization it can be. He doesn't have an agenda here at all, and it really is responding to what he's heard.

We're in the process of launching an arm's-length study to have a look at this. At the same time, the new head of the FFMC, which is arm's length, is having a look at their strategic plan, and so on. David has more details. But we would simply be working with the provinces to figure out if there is a place for dual marketing in that structure or not. There's no intention to do anything fundamental.

[David Bevan]

There are four elements. One is whether to have the independent study on the dual marketing or not. The other is the FFMC doing its review. We're looking at working with the provinces in that context--that's the third element. Finally, they're looking at having another review or poll of the fishermen involved to find out their view and whether they are satisfied or not. They do that every few years. The last time there was a high degree of support for the FFMC from the fishermen, but they want to check that now to help inform the strategic review.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Single-desk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I don't know how Mr. Simms managed to get six minutes and 42 seconds. I apologize to Mr. Blais for having to take that off his time.