Fisheries Committee on March 11th, 2008

[Michelle d'Auray]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I should point out that no budget has been allocated to the department for dredging as such, except in very specific locations that are the subject of agreements with the United States, for example. In other cases, we're given directives by Cabinet based on previous decisions.

I'm going to let Mr. Da Pont continue, if he has something else to add. Perhaps he could clarify where the dredging is being done.

[Commr George Da Pont]

It's being done at only two locations in Canada: first, in the Detroit River, and in the St. Clair River, pursuant to international commitments with the United States. It's also being done in the St. Lawrence River, but that work is entirely paid for by the industry. So it's a specific arrangement.

[Michelle d'Auray]

I'm going to ask Mr. Bevan to answer you on the current state of the discussions. The discussions are currently continuing and we haven't reached an agreement. The discussions on inventory are ongoing. We're also discussing overfishing and monitoring to ensure quota compliance.

[David Bevan, Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

The discussions have enabled us to increase total catches and to have a sustainable fishery. Obviously, quotas and sharing total catches still pose problems. So the discussions must continue. We can't solve all the problems and have peace on the water. The discussions have to continue every year in order to solve the problems that arise from time to time and to improve fisheries management.

[Michelle d'Auray]

You asked a question concerning submarines. I don't know whether Mr. Da Pont wants to venture out on those waters, if you'll pardon that pun.

[Commr George Da Pont]

No. It's more a question of fisheries management, because that's one way of conducting studies.

[Michelle d'Auray]

We're going to toss the ball back and forth. So, Mr. Chairman, I would tell you that we don't plan to ask National Defence to be responsible for their submarines.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

I understand.

Mr. Blais, you have a minute and a half.

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

I'm going to talk about the small craft harbours file and dredging obligations. Every year, Quebec is stuck with this file because a lot of money has to be allocated to dredging because of silting and so on. One long-term solution would require more money immediately, but would make it possible to reduce the financial effort that has to be made for dredging every year. This activity costs more than $1 million a year for Quebec.

Has your department examined this matter from the standpoint of long-term savings, or are you operating from a short-term perspective?

[Michelle d'Auray]

From year to year, we invest in the dredging of small craft harbours in certain sectors. As my colleague Mr. Hegge has told you on numerous occasions, it's always a gain for us to balance medium and longer-term expenditures to repair and do the necessary rebuilding in the harbours. We have to juggle the various pressures and the various factors. Year after year, we allocate approximately $10 million to that, and, every time, we look at other ways of improving the situation, having regard to the amounts and funding available for this program.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Stoffer.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Da Pont, but last year an announcement was made about x number of millions of dollars for heritage buildings in Quebec City. That was for the coast guard, I believe. If I'm correct on that, can you tell me how money was allocated for that?

[Commr George Da Pont]

I don't have the exact figure with me, but that was funding for repairs to the coast guard base in Quebec City. I don't know the funds off the top of my head.

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

If I'm not mistaken, it was around $12 million or something of that nature. If it was $12 million, what was the cost to repair the BIO and DFO wharf in Dartmouth? We understand that one of the reasons the ships were being moved to Newfoundland was because of that cost. If I'm not mistaken, those costs were estimated to be about $6.5 million.

[Commr George Da Pont]

Almost. We are doing about $10 million of work at the wharf in BIO to accommodate all the vessels, except for the two heavy icebreakers. Had we had to do the work on the wharf to accommodate the two heavy icebreakers, we would have had to spend at least another $10 million more, over and above that.

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

You indicated in a previous hearing that moving a ship to Argentia would be.... I'm not sure of the costs you said, but in St. John's the costs would be almost nil.

[Commr George Da Pont]

In both cases, the cost is very minimal. In St. John's we're going to use the existing facilities that are there at the St. John's base. In Argentia we estimated the cost would be about $100,000 for electrical hook-ups and work of that nature.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Bevan, you and I had a chat before, regarding my trip when I went to the high Arctic, regarding the 0A-0B line, of moving it to include the communities of Grise Ford, Resolute Bay, and Arctic Bay. I'm wondering if you could tell us what it would take to move that line in order that these communities and their fishermen would have access to some of the fish stocks in the 0A area.

As well, Bill S-215—I believe it's the number on the lighthouse bill—is coming before us in the House of Commons. I know that transcends various departments: Environment, Transport, and the coast guard, etc. Hopefully we can get that bill in this committee very quickly.

What role, Mr. Da Pont, would you be playing on that bill in order to get it forward so that we can protect the heritage of some of these lighthouses throughout the country?

[David Bevan]

Moving the 0A-0B line would be a significant bit of work. We share stocks with Greenland in that area. We are subject to receiving advice from the NAFO Scientific Council with respect to some of the species in that area. The whole convention there for NAFO would have to be reconsidered in terms of where they want to draw those lines, and that would be a fairly lengthy process. There may be something else we could do in terms of licences, etc., but not in moving the line. That would be a major undertaking, and there's no way to guarantee the outcome.

[Commr George Da Pont]

In terms of the heritage lighthouse bill, that's actually the responsibility of my colleague, Mr. Hegge.

The coast guard interest is to ensure that we are able, obviously, to use them for our operational requirements as needed.

For the rest of the file, there is Mr. Hegge.

[Cal Hegge, Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources and Corporate Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

The only thing I could add is that our minister, as you're probably aware, supports the bill. It is going to second reading today, I believe, and beyond that we're working very closely with our colleagues in Parks Canada around the designation, the actual definition of what would constitute a heritage lighthouse.

So everything seems to be moving at a fairly quick pace with respect to that bill.

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

Wonderful.

Perhaps I could sneak a last question in.

As you know, 2004 was not a very good year on the Fraser River, and we had a Williams commission, if you want to call it that, afterwards. But those fish are now coming back, and it's 2008. Could you please let us know what the plans are for 2008, if indeed those fish stocks are not as good as we had hoped they would be?

[David Bevan]

Clearly the 2004 brood year was not a good year. We also are looking at significant changes in ocean survival in the Pacific. We've had different oceanographic conditions that the fish have been dealing with.

The current estimated return would not provide a lot of economic opportunities for commercial fishermen. We would probably be constraining the food, social, and ceremonial fisheries in the Fraser River on sockeye as well. So it's not looking like a very positive year, and that's assuming that the ocean survival is average. We won't know, of course, what's actually coming back until we've seen the test fishery results.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I have any time left, I'll be sharing it with Mr. Keddy.

I have several questions. The first question is about a concern from inland fishers. We heard testimony during our small craft harbours study, and I think this was talked about in previous studies, in regard to the bushing of fish. This happens when the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation isn't ready to receive certain species. There might be bycatch such as mullet, or a non-walleye or non-pickerel species, depending on what the board has for markets and so on. There is concern there, and there has been some call for a dual marketing or a flexible marketing program. That would allow some value-add on some of those species that are getting bushed right now. I'd like some clarification on whether that's being considered and whether the provinces have been asking for any consideration on that.

With respect to my second point, I have a county in my constituency that's in the process of doing some evaluations on river training. This river actually overflowed its bank, and if it weren't for a roadway, it would have gone in a completely different direction. It's a fairly large river--the Clearwater River. It's part of the North Saskatchewan headwaters. It would have actually gone into the Red Deer River, a completely different drainage change, if it weren't for a roadway that basically stopped it.

I know the county is looking at some things to get the river back into its original channel. So far they've had nothing but praise for DFO. DFO is doing a great job on that front, but they're concerned that there needs to be a bit more coordination with Alberta Environment as far as a single point to get these concerns dealt with. I will leave that with you for information.

The last question I have deals with counties, again. I represent a fairly large constituency, and depending where you are, access to gravel is becoming a major problem in Alberta. I know there's some talk about gravel mining in some of the rivers--the North Saskatchewan River, for example. I'm wondering if you could provide an update on whether the department is making it easier. Obviously we're concerned about it from a fish habitat perspective. Could you give me any information? I know it was talked about earlier today.

Those are my three comments, concerns, or questions.