Fisheries Committee on March 11th, 2008

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

Yes.

[Commr George Da Pont]

There are about 34 or 35.

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

How many are in Newfoundland right now?

[Commr George Da Pont]

There are two in Newfoundland.

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

Where are they located?

[Commr George Da Pont]

I don't have the specific locations with me.

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

Is there one on the northeast coast?

[Commr George Da Pont]

I'm afraid I don't know for sure.

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

Should there be one on the northeast coast?

[Commr George Da Pont]

I thought....

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

No, it's not funny; it's quite tragic, actually.

[Commr George Da Pont]

I understand. It's a serious question.

As the committee is aware, we've been conducting an SAR needs analysis for the better part of a year and a half, which we've completed. We are discussing the findings with our partners, the Department of National Defence and the auxiliary, and on the basis of that, we'll be looking at whatever adjustments are appropriate in terms of our SAR coverage.

In Newfoundland, we have not had that many 47-foot lifeboats for two reasons. One is that the profile of SAR cases in Newfoundland is very different from many other parts of the country. Well over half the cases take place beyond 50 miles, which is beyond the range of those 47-foot lifeboats. So most of our profile in Newfoundland has been built around our medium and our larger vessels for that reason.

In addition, the 47-foot lifeboats don't operate in ice conditions, so of course they're limited just to the spring, summer, and early fall seasons. The profile in Newfoundland has been dictated by the types of SAR cases and the types of vessels that are best placed to respond to those SAR cases.

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

The Transportation Safety Board said it's not going to look into the situation that happened with the Check-Mate III. What are your thoughts on that? Have you received the latest detailed reports on what happened that very evening?

[Commr George Da Pont]

Mr. Chairman, obviously it's not appropriate for me to comment on decisions from the Transportation Safety Board.

In terms of the investigation, I understand the Department of National Defence is conducting an end investigation and will have a report. I have not seen that yet.

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

Would that be a precursor to any report you would do?

[Commr George Da Pont]

We would see what the conclusions were from the DND report. At this point we're not planning any separate investigation of our own.

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

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Are there any more...? There are two and a half minutes here.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

I want to follow up on the Larocque decision. I wanted to raise this with the minister directly as well, but time constraints prevented it.

Why is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans ignoring a direct request by this committee for information pertaining to quotas that have been assigned pursuant to the implementation of science and scientific management?

We've asked, as a committee, for detailed information on quotas that have been provided to various fishing organizations or fisheries stakeholders groups, amounting to the name of the organization, the type of fish that was provided, the amount of fish that was provided, and the intended outcomes from that fish that was provided to have those groups engage in scientific activities and report that back to the public through DFO.

The department, however—after several months of requests from this committee—has refused to be fulsome in its report to us. It's only provided information on 60 organizations that have received quotas. It will not provide the type of fish nor the volume of fish that was provided. It simply stated that organization X got what the department estimates to be a dollar value of fish provided.

What is the department hiding? This is a very serious question. This committee has asked for some information. It is clear to us you're ragging the puck on this issue, and quite frankly, you're raising suspicion among the committee members that the department is actually hiding something.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Mr. Chair, I would like to offer to the member that we are not hiding any information. The interpretation of the question and the request for information was that it was about the number of organizations that had received fish for science activities. The remainder—I think we have about 170 agreements with organizations and/or enterprises—do not involve the use of fish, which is why we did not provide that information. It wasn't that—

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

What does it involve, then?

[Michelle d'Auray]

Sometimes we would pay them directly to do it, so it was in fact contracted services, and on occasion it involved services in kind on our behalf, i.e., we would provide the scientists on board or the equipment necessary. Those involving the use of fish—i.e., the critical component of the Larocque decision, which was that we could not use fish as a means of covering the expenses for the surveys—was what we provided you.

We will provide you with the others by the end of this month, but frankly, they do not include the use of fish. The agreements were in fact contractual agreements that included funding on our behalf or in-kind services. This is why we interpreted your question—and my apologies if that was not the intent of the question—as dealing with the use of fish specifically, which is what we provided the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Madame.

Thank you, Mr. Byrne.

Mr. Lévesque.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'm going to ask my questions all at once, and then Mr. Blais will take over.

First, I'd like to know whether budgets have been set aside for harbour dredging. As you know, beluga quotas have been set for the coasts of Hudson's Bay and Ungava Bay. The quota of one small village located on the point is distorted every year because people from villages further to the south come and fish off the point. However, the quota is calculated based on the village. The other day, the minister told me that constructive discussions were being held with the Inuit, but we don't know the results.

Furthermore, when the Inuit are asked to count the beluga population, people from the department are then sent to check the count. However, the beluga move on in the meantime, and when the check is done, they've moved further away. Consequently, what is calculated doesn't accurately reflect the stocks. We had asked the minister responsible for the matter to rely on the Inuit's reports, particularly since there was no advantage for them in cheating. It's a matter of survival for them. I'd like to know where those matters stand.

Mr. Da Pont, given that the submarines are currently inactive, would it be possible for you to requisition one to go and count the stocks under the ice? We know that cod populations are declining and we have a lot of questions on that subject. Sometimes we wonder whether it's possible those populations are migrating to colder waters, in view of global warming. I also think this activity could serve as training for submarine personnel.