Fisheries Committee on May 1st, 2008

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If I have any time left, I would like to share it with Mr. Lévesque.

I have another question for Mr. Da Pont about the Coast Guard. Regarding Coast Guard revenues, I was wondering about the status of the negotiations—or the agreement—between ocean carriers and the Coast Guard on fees for services such as icebreaking. According to the latest news, an agreement has yet to be reached and the existing fee structure is still in place. I just wanted to check on the status of the negotiations.

[George Da Pont]

You are correct in that the existing fee structure is still in place. As you stated, we are having discussions with the industry. Together, we are considering several options. For now, we cannot agree on any one option in particular. However, discussions are progressing smoothly and I hope that we can find a solution that is amenable to us and to the industry.

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

Is it normal, in your opinion, to have an unlimited timetable for holding these discussions? To my knowledge, negotiations with the marine industry have been going on for at least five years, and perhaps even longer. That seems unusual to me.

[George Da Pont]

There is nothing out of the ordinary about this situation. Fee negotiations are always difficult. Negotiations actually began a year or a year and a half ago, not five years ago. Considerable progress has been made. Obviously, we have yet to come to an agreement, but for the first time in many years, we are having discussions. It is quite common to discuss fees from time to time, as per the act, with the parties who pay the fees. These negotiations are not straightforward. However, we are making progress and I hope that we are able to come up with a solution.

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

Good day, ladies and gentlemen. I see that men are in the minority this morning.

[An hon. member]

Hooray!

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

There is one thing that has been bothering me this morning, further to our hearings in the Maritime provinces. My colleague Mr. Calkins proved that he did pay close attention to the discussions. He raised this issue, but I would like to come back to it.

Carleton and Gaspé are having problems with their small craft ports which are jointly administered by Transport Canada, the Coast Guard and Fisheries and Oceans. Most of them have been condemned and shut down. Aquaculture farms are looking for locations to conduct their operations. They are tolerated on the docks. I used the word “tolerated”. They feel equally rejected by the Coast Guard and by Transport Canada. As I see it, there are three departments involved: two of them oversee wharves, while the third is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Given the state of repair of small craft ports, I'm wondering if there isn't some way of agreeing to make room for the fishers who need a place to unload and transfer their gear.

[Michelle d'Auray]

This is something that I think we can discuss with our colleagues from the different departments. I think that in some cases, an amicable agreement can be worked out, as you suggested, as a temporary solution. The responsibilities of the departments must also be taken into consideration. Discussions are being held and options explored.

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

Isn't there some way of negotiating a permanent arrangement that would automatically apply in similar cases?

[Michelle d'Auray]

I'd like to discuss this further with my colleague from Transport Canada before I commit myself, or him, to anything. His department has its own legislation and regulations. I think this option is worth exploring. In some cases, we have worked out an arrangement. Each situation is fairly unique and port usage is set out in Transport Canada regulations and procedures. What we can undertake to do is to review our workable options.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Lévesque. Sorry, time flies when you're having fun.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Da Pont, I know that for estimate purposes the budget of the coast guard and all of that has to be within the DFO framework. But being a separate operating agency, is it not possible in the future to get a side brochure showing the coast guard's own budgetary items—wages, salaries, benefits, all that kind of stuff—separate from DFO, just to make that more clear?

[George Da Pont]

It certainly is. We actually try to provide all that detailed information in our business plan, which we share with the committee. Within a few weeks I anticipate we will be sending the committee our business plan for 2008, and you'll see all those specific breakdowns.

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

Thank you.

There is an old saying that you hope for the best and prepare for the worst. It appears, at least on the surface, that the Fraser River run in 2008 will not be very good. A lot of people are quite nervous about that, as you know, especially the first nations people.

I've been speaking to a couple of fishermen from Washington State about some of the concerns they have. So I'd like to know, are there any negotiations going on through the Pacific Salmon Treaty about a reduction of catch on the American side and also within the Canadian side?

It appears that the 2008 run may not be very good at all, so there is going to be a lot of pressure on DFO regarding sport fishing, first nations fishing, the constitutional right they have for food, social, and ceremonial purposes, plus the previous treaty with the Americans and their catch as well. Can you please tell us what deliberations or conversations are going on, in order to alleviate the fears and the pressures that may come within a few months?

[Michelle d'Auray]

Certainly. Thank you for the question.

Discussions on the issues around the salmon runs—and I will put the species, salmon, as plural—have started and have been going on for quite some time with, I would say, all the stakeholders along the coast and within the river system, because the returns last year were so low and the predictions for this year are in fact fairly low and in a critical situation. The discussions have been going on now for some months with first nations, commercial fishers, and harvesters.

Obviously our intent is to develop and to continue to develop, as we have in the past, what we call “integrated fisheries management plans”, in order to be able to deal, as we always do, with conservation as the first priority; the second element, which is the constitutionally protected food, social, and ceremonial purposes; and then look at what availabilities there might be, if at all, for commercial and recreational activity, which is not likely to be the case in many instances for species this year.

The discussions have started. They have been started now for close to three months. They started, actually, almost as soon as the season ended.

With regard to the Pacific Salmon Treaty, the discussions have in fact been going on throughout the fall. We believe that in the next two months, at the outset, we will be coming to a conclusion on those fronts. There are a couple of issues on which we are still in discussions with the U.S., but we are all very concerned, and it is a partnership approach that we are taking with regard to the management of the species.

I don't know if Madame Dansereau would like to add to that.

[Claire Dansereau, Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

No, that's good.

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

A few years ago there was a big concern about mustard gas that was dropped off the east coast, and other emissions by DND in the 1950s. I know DND and DFO worked cooperatively to find these sites and estimate what could be done. I don't know if they could be removed. Is any of this mapping going on, assisting the identification of where these sites are? I know there are folks in Cape Breton and others who are quite concerned about the ongoing search for these sites and where they are and what can be done to mitigate any possible damage in the future.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Thank you.

I believe a number of issues were raised by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development in the recent report, and we are working with the Department of National Defence on these sites. We are working and helping them in the mapping and the identification. I do not believe all the mapping has been completed. Some of those issues were raised in the commissioner's report, but we are working extremely collaboratively, and much of the mapping requested by the Department of National Defence is being done by the department with them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Keddy.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to our witnesses.

I'd just like to make an opening comment on the loss of the sealers in the gulf. I know that's been a difficult issue, certainly for the families first of all, but for the coast guard and DFO as well. I'd like to say on the record that from what I can see from what you've done so far to have an internal investigation led by an independent person, a full investigation by Transportation Safety Board, and another investigation by the RCMP, so three investigations ongoing, is the right thing to do. It's important for clarity. It's important for transparency. Most of all, it's important for the families who lost loved ones in that accident. The results will be made public.

However, all that being said, I have heard some discussion that there may be some review with coast guard of how we tow vessels. There's some discussion that there may be the possibility that the skippers and the crew members of vessels will not be allowed to be on the vessels when they're under tow, and that I think is an issue that would require careful review. I'd like to think there would be a very careful review before any captain or skipper of a vessel is ordered off that vessel, because they are in command of the vessel.

[George Da Pont]

Again, thank you for those remarks.

As you would normally expect, when we've had an incident of this nature, we certainly will review policies. But I'm not entirely sure where you heard the discussions or the reference to the discussions that you mentioned, because I think our review will be very much informed by the outcome of the investigations. I think it's obviously appropriate to wait and take those into account before anyone makes any significant changes, and that is our approach.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Okay. Thank you for that.

Another issue that was brought up already was on COSEWIC. There are a number of species that are listed now under COSEWIC and there are a number of those species that could be listed under SARA. I've got two points to my question.

First, I would hope that before any species is listed, there is additional science done, that the science is repeated, and that you look to the fishery itself, to the fishermen themselves, to see if that species is actually out there or not. Where I'm headed with that is on cusk. There is some discussion that cusk could be listed under SARA.

When you speak to the fishermen themselves, they will tell you that there is a fair amount of cusk on the east coast in areas that cusk tend to inhabit.

The trawl survey that was done--the dragger survey--didn't find any cusk because cusk crawl into holes on the bottom; they get under rocks and they tend to inhabit areas that any dragger fisherman wouldn't put a drag in, because it's too rocky and too rough.

However, the longline fishermen are catching cusk, and the lobster fishermen in certain areas get some cusk in their lobster traps. So if this species were to be listed under SARA, you would shut down a longline fishery, which is certainly a most non-invasive fishery, and you would shut down a trap fishery, which is a non-destructive fishery, in all possibility on science that was done.... And someone has to ask the question: was it done deliberately so they wouldn't find cusk? Why did you use gear that traditionally never catches cusk?

[Michelle d'Auray]

Thank you for the question.

The listing of species under the Species at Risk Act is in fact a fairly extensive process where we do have a number of opportunities--when there is an interest or an intent established by COSEWIC--for us, for DFO, and for our scientists to be able to provide additional information when we are uncertain as to whether or not the listing should be done, and if so, under which of the headings. We have very extensive and fairly lengthy processes before we actually get to the point of making a recommendation for a listing.

In this particular instance, we have taken note of the issues around the trawl survey. We have also indicated--as for all species--that there is a certain amount of additional analysis yet to be made. The other element that we also consider is a socio-economic analysis before a species is listed. If there are commercial interests, that also gets factored in before any decision is made.

So we have taken note of what COSEWIC has put forward, but there is a fairly extensive and lengthy review that is under way at this point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Russell.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On sealing, of course this is a much-maligned industry by so-called animal rights groups, and they have certainly unfairly targeted our sealers, our families, and our communities.

I'm just wondering, within the budget itself.... I know there are snippets of money spent on maybe some information, some management matters, and even some of the coast guard budget gets used up in terms of assisting our sealers, like it would other types of fisheries. Is there a separate budget item or is there any targeted money that goes into assisting our sealers and the sealing industry? Because those who oppose it are of course spending millions--if not tens of millions--of dollars trying to eradicate this important traditional cultural and economic industry.

So is there any line item whatsoever in these estimates I could point to and say yes, you use that money to assist our sealers?