Fisheries Committee on May 17th, 2007

[Sue Kirby, Assistant Deputy Minister, Oceans and Habitat Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

We can compel fish passage at dams, but beyond that I don't have any specifics with me, so we will come back.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you very much.

With regard to invasive species and international vessels, as you know, the Great Lakes is now having its own issues. What are we doing in terms of enforcement before ballast is discharged into the system? Are there enough officers? Is the enforcement adequate? Can we actually make the charges work so that they act as a disincentive?

[Larry Murray]

I think that's an excellent question. I'll ask some of my colleagues to leap in with maybe some specifics.

It is an area the government has put more money into in the last two budgets. The aerial surveillance has been increased. That's led by Environment Canada, but we actually make available our provincial airways. We have significant coastal patrol capability that we exercise off the east coast primarily for fishery enforcement reasons, but they also keep an eye open for this. There have been successful prosecutions. The last budget, I think under the oceans action plan, further increased the ability to do surveillance. But the whole area of invasives has got quite a positive injection of funding in the last few budgets.

Wendy, do you want to talk to some of the specifics?

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright]

Certainly. This really falls under Transport Canada predominantly, and they are responsible for regulating ballast water in Canadian waters. New ballast water regulations did come into force in June 2006, and these regulations meet the standards set out in the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments.

In terms of the Great Lakes themselves, I know there is a great amount of angst at this particular time. Again, I believe that will come up at the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. In particular now, especially in the United States, there is concern that the ships coming from salt water are permitted to come into the fresh water of the Great Lakes and what this is doing. I know we will be discussing that.

The role of DFO science in this is really to provide scientific advice to Transport Canada in this regard. For example, we have looked at alternative exchange zones for exchange of ballast water off Nova Scotia and in and around the Laurentian Channel. We will also be, in the coming year, looking at an alternative zone around Newfoundland. We are looking to a demonstration of real-time risk assessment system for ballast water exchange and evaluating other vectors. There's a lot of interest in this, and we are working closely with Transport Canada, closely with the Province of Ontario, and certainly closely with our U.S. colleagues, through the commission.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Ms. Watson-Wright.

Thank you, Mr. Boshcoff. I know that was an important answer, so we got it all.

Monsieur Gaudet.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you.

This will not be long: I only have a short question to ask.

In 2003, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans tabled its report on the role of the federal government within aquaculture in Canada, in which it supports the industry responsible development. The first of its 26 recommendations involves the passing of federal legislation on aquaculture that would provide a legal framework for developing environmental regulations appropriate to this industry.

Has this already been done?

[Larry Murray]

No, it has not yet been done. However, we are working on an agreement between the provinces and the federal government in order to ensure more effective regulations. The new Bill C-45 contains aquaculture provisions, but we do not intend to have a specific piece of legislation solely dedicated to that.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

This is only my personal opinion, but parliamentarians come and go and officials stay. I was elected in 2003. Since then, there have been three ministers of Fisheries and Oceans. I imagine that the same situation exists in the provinces, except that elections are less frequent.

I find that it takes a long time to establish something tangible. We want to make progress, but it takes decades to get bills passed or to do anything. That may suit some people but will not suit others at the same time.

That was my reaction. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you.

Mr. Kamp.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to follow up Mr. Boshcoff's line of questioning, I know he'll be pleased to read part 3 of Bill C-45, the renewed fisheries act, which has to do with—

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

Excuse me, but Mr. Lunney said that Bill C-45 was a red herring in this issue, that it was irrelevant. So I don't know if you want to pursue....

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Mr. Kamp, go ahead, please.

[An hon. member]

The direction of questioning was a red herring.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[An hon. member]

Bill C-45 was red herring.

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

Thank you, Mr. Simms.

It will provide some new tools to the minister with respect to invasive species, which I think we all agree are important to deal with, however we arrive at this.

The report on plans and priorities lists seven program priorities—all of which are at some level of progress, I would assume—including fisheries renewal, international governance, aquaculture governance, the oceans action plan, science renewal, Canadian Coast Guard rejuvenation, and environmental process modernization. We've heard of some of those along the way in the last several days here, when we've had a chance to discuss these things.

Are there any of these priorities on which you would say we're making excellent progress? It's reasonable to assume, I would think, that we aren't making equal progress on all of these. Are we making exceptional progress on any of these, and are there any of them where we're making what you would say is poor progress, where we need to do better? If we're making poor progress on any of these, is it related to funding issues? That's my question.

A related question is that it doesn't appear that the issue of small craft harbours fits into any of these program priorities. Perhaps you can correct me if I'm wrong, and explain where small craft harbours fit in the priorities of the department.

I may have another question, if I have time after that.

[Larry Murray]

I might quickly run through the seven, if I've got them right.

In terms of fisheries renewal, it's challenging. I think we are making good headway. We won't arrive at Nirvana overnight. I think the recent announcements by the minister on April 12, some of the funding we got on science and so on, will help. But that will be a work in progress for some time, and I'm not sure it's one, in my view, where a whole bunch more money.... It's a question of new legislation; it's a range of things that are in play.

On international governance, at least in the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, a NAFO area, thanks to the minister's effort on NAFO reform, the presence out there is one where I think there's been huge progress. I'd say we're working with other nations more globally. It would be hard to say that high seas governance on the high seas everywhere is making as rapid progress as we would like, but I think Canada is playing a significant role. Again, my view is that the funding that we have to maintain the presence and funding the new ambassador and so on has made a huge difference in NAFO and we're contributing broadly.

On aquaculture governance, I understand the frustration recently expressed around aquaculture. I think we have to move forward with the aquaculture framework agreement, and unless and until we do that, I would be concerned about real progress around sorting out the regulation in a manner that reassures Canadians and makes it more effective and timely for the industry. I think also the additional R and D that would be part of that proposition, some kind of shared responsibility for the risk that the industry bears, needs to be looked at.

So in terms of aquaculture, I think progress has been made, but I would share the frustration that it's not moving as quickly as it should. And I would say the framework agreement is there and there is a monetary or a fiscal aspect to that.

On the oceans action plan, I think phase one we did well. I think there was support in the last budget. Again, it's an area where we have a number of things under way on all coasts. Could we go faster with more funding? Yes. Has it got headway, is it moving forward? Yes. It's critical to some of the other ones too, in my view. Until we change our mindset to integrated oceans management and an ecosystem approach, we'll not actually solve the fisheries renewal one; it's part of the whole thing.

On the science renewal, I think we're making reasonably good headway and we did get funding.

On coast guard rejuvenation, it's hard to be upset about a program that got $750 million in the last two budgets. I think that one is moving forward and internally I think we're doing some work. The Auditor General's report pointed out some things. We're working on those things under Mr. Da Pont's leadership and a lot of interest from the minister, obviously.

The environmental process modernization was talked to here. Again, I think we're making good headway working with other departments. Breaking down of these rice bowls is really important.

I think the small craft harbours one is an excellent question, because where does it fit in all of this? Maybe that's part of the issue. Where it fits is actually related to a number of them. It certainly fits under fisheries renewal. It's hard to have fisheries renewal if fishermen don't have adequate facilities. It fits into aquaculture as part of the infrastructure thing. But maybe the issue is that we haven't identified it as a stand-alone in this stuff and it's kind of like our other enablers. So maybe how we factored it is part of the problem, but I would say it fits clearly under fisheries renewal, aquaculture renewal, and one or two of the others. It is an issue that needs more attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Kamp.

Thank you, Mr. Murray.

We do need to vote the estimates today, but I would offer one more round to the members, if there's someone else who has a question or wants their five minutes.

Mr. Matthews.

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

I wasn't going to wade into this at all. As a matter of fact, I was sort of interested in going home.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

However, the aquaculture piece interested me.

As I said last day, I represent an area on the south coast of Newfoundland where we're getting into a pretty significant piece of aquaculture activity. I expect it's going to be quite substantial if it goes the way we all hope it goes, or all want it to go.

There's actually a tremendous requirement for infrastructure around the industry due to the activity of feeding the fish in the water and so on. Many of our wharves now do not have the capability for all the activity. What we're finding is that wharves originally established for commercial fishermen are now starting to be occupied with aquaculture activity--loading feed to take out to the sites, and on and on it goes--and in some cases provincial ferries may use the same wharves. So we're getting into a fair bit of user conflict.

I know that ACOA has been down to the region in the past few years and talked to the stakeholders. I'm just wondering how we're ever going to cross that bridge, although the deputy minister alluded to, I think, where it might fit. In addition to the existing wharves we have for, say, the traditional fishery, if we're going to be able to accommodate this increased aquaculture activity, we're either going to have to expand the existing infrastructure or build new, strictly for aquaculture activity.

I don't know what your thoughts are on that. I'm concerned about it because I don't know how we're going to cross that bridge. I think this area I'm speaking about will become in the next five years, as a result of what's happening, probably one of the most prosperous areas of the province. I wouldn't want to see the infrastructure requirements not being met and then the industry pushed back.

What are your thoughts on that?

[Larry Murray]

We have done some work estimating that. Depending on how an aquaculture framework agreement shakes out between the federal government, the provinces, the territories, and industry, infrastructure could be part of one element.

There's no question that the answer is one of the two answers that have been alluded to--namely, it's either new infrastructure or the expansion of existing infrastructure. We have done some initial work on that. I think the estimate of $60 million or so is the amount that we think is probably what would be required to meet whatever snapshot in time we did this. I think it was about a year or so ago, so that number is a little bit dated.

So our estimate, in addition to those other numbers we've used on small craft harbours, is probably about $60 million for what might be required to ensure that the infrastructure is in place for the aquaculture industry as well.

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

So right now, outside of your small craft harbours allocation, which you may marry, say, in a wharf that's now overused, you don't have any financial provisions to help an industry like that. Outside of that allocation, you don't have anything to support aquaculture infrastructure?

[Larry Murray]

We don't have anything specific to support aquaculture infrastructure beyond the scientific research programs and that kind of stuff. Our contribution to the Cooke piece was $4.5 million in terms of scientific work, and ACOA brought some money, which I guess the industry could use for infrastructure.

But the infrastructure question you raise on aquaculture is one that does need to be looked at and answered.