Fisheries Committee on May 6th, 2008

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, I think you're aware of the shortage in funding for small craft harbours and the major problem with the invasive species in the blue mussel industry in Prince Edward Island.

It's not specified in the main estimates what will take place with the $38 million in additional operating expenditures. Will some of these dollars be put into small craft harbours or doing something to help the mussel industry deal with the invasive species, understanding that the mussel industry is so important to the economy of Prince Edward Island?

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

First of all, I don't think we have a lot of money floating around--

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

It's $38 million, Mr. Minister.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

I think we have somebody explaining the $38 million. It's not just sitting there, as you know.

In relation to the mussel industry, we are heavily involved in that one already. The Department of Fisheries has been working with ACOA in particular; they've been helpful. We're seeing...not only in P.E.I., but now we're seeing tunicates, in particular, in Newfoundland and Labrador. The aquaculture industry...the industry generally. We see it affecting aquaculture, because it's so close, but undoubtedly it's affecting the wild fishery too. Tunicates are an enemy that we have to address quickly. We need to address a lot of our work, both scientifically and on the water, toward repelling that. We are having some success.

We will use any free funds. If we happen to have a windfall somewhere and find money, we'll put it where the priorities are. As far as P.E.I. goes, that certainly is a priority. As far as infrastructure goes, that's a priority right across the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Go ahead, Mr. Blais.

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

With respect to the shrimp fishery, Minister, I would like to know if you have a short, medium, or long-term plan to avoid what happened again this year, and what, unfortunately, has happened in years past. It looks to us like the future for the shrimp fishery in Quebec is uncertain. I would like to know what you intend to do in the coming weeks or months so that we won't find ourselves in the same situation next year. I know that the industry—since I was their spokesman—has already provided you with an assistance plan that deals with this file, particularly as it relates to the cost of permits. You know that gas and fuel are getting more expensive, and that prices may continue to rise in the coming months. Some things can be done, and I would like to know what you are prepared to do.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Blais.

I agree with you that things need to be done. Things are being done and things will be done. Something can be done relatively quickly, and something can be done by the fishermen themselves.

It gets back to us having to maximize resources, to fish at the best time, and to fish in order to land quality product to get the best prices we can. If we are going to put poor product on the market, the price drops and everybody loses, consequently. So I think the fishermen are really, really changing their methods of fishing to make sure they land quality product. And then the processors, etc., have to be a part of it, as they are part of it all, or part of the overall ocean-to-plate philosophy.

What we also need to do, and what we have done since we came in two years ago.... A lot of the shrimp goes to the European market. We only had 7,000 metric tonnes going in there at a low rate and we were paying a 20% tariff on the rest. We've increased that threefold to 20,000 metric tonnes and have worked for the elimination entirely of that tariff, which would certainly be of help.

Last year the fishermen in your area were held up for a while because the processors were paying only 27¢ a pound, despite the fact that much more was being paid in New Brunswick and Newfoundland. It was the same shrimp and the same markets, generally speaking. This year they started with 52¢, which is almost double what we got last year. I know you'll say that fuel has gone up, etc., but it is still a fair jump, and certainly one that didn't necessitate our involvement with fees on a specific case—because there are a lot of specific cases there.

What we have said, and I'll say it quite clearly, is that the whole fee structure is completely and utterly inadequate. Quite often we set fees when the price is relatively high, and in the last two years we saw the strengthening of the Canadian dollar, which had a major effect on the product we're sending to the States—which is a lot of our product. That hurt everybody. We saw fuel costs go through the roof. That hurt, and we are still this big bad government charging them the same fees we charged them a few years ago.

We made a commitment last year to change the whole fee structure, which is now working its way through the process. If the fees were set by my department, we would change them overnight. They're not, and fee structures have to go through the whole governmental process. It is a lengthy, time-consuming, and idiotic process—pardon me for using that word—and it is being reviewed. In fact, I think the Auditor General, in her latest report, deals with fee structures. So I know where you're coming from.

That's what we can do. We will change the fees. The fees will be commensurate with the net profits—they have to be. Other than having them that way, people will pay a heavy price.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, could you answer the earlier question?

And I have a second question for you. You know Gus Etchegary well. He sent me a note asking that I ask you a question.

They have been trying to get some information through access to information regarding what's happening with the 200-mile limit in terms of enforcement, etc. They have been getting responses back that for security reasons and confidentiality, the information can't be released. Gus Etchegary would like to know why, as they're having great difficulty accessing information on that issue through ATI.

I'm just wondering if you're aware of that, and if you're not, could you look into it? I could possibly give you the notes they have sent me, and I could hand them off either to you, your associate, or David, if you'd like.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

First of all, let me just get back to what you asked earlier, about the mining act and the effect on ponds.

In many mining operations, the best way to take care of the tailings is in water, and the only water available in many parts of rural Canada is trout-bearing ponds or streams. We have, for the first time ever, this last year on two occasions rejected applications because of the effect on fish and fish habitat where the damage that would be done was beyond what would be termed acceptable, beyond the benefits that would accrue from any such development. So there is not a yes to every development at all.

On the other hand, if mitigation can take place, our bottom line is no net loss of fish or fish habitat. That's where it lies. If people want to argue with that, we will argue. Our philosophy is that there will be no net loss.

Do we stop major development and the creation of jobs, sometimes sponsored by the people in rural areas who have few opportunities, and quite often first nations groups, when on one project you might see different groups on one side of the project? It depends. If it's close to home, there is a different attitude. The bottom line is, if you are going to affect a fish area, fish habitat, or fish stocks, can you mitigate it in the nearby area such that you have no net loss and benefit the people in the long term? If you can't do that, it will be no, as we have said twice this past year. Can we have the best of both worlds? If there is not a major disruption, probably we can, but that's where you have to walk that fine line and make sure you take everything into consideration.

In relation to the freedom of information....

[Claire Dansereau]

We'll look into it.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Okay, we'll look into it and see what the story is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Kamp.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just have two quick questions.

I wondered whether you could give us an update on the status of the wharf at Digby Harbour and how we're progressing with that situation.

Then, on the other coast, could you give us an update on the potential salvage operation at Robson Bight?

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Kamp.

A lot of you here are looking for wharves and breakwaters. I suggested to my Newfoundland colleagues, in light of the new spirit of our premier, who is willing to help Ontario financially, that we have a lot of wharves and breakwaters and might help Quebec and some other areas. But you'll have to move them at your cost; that's the only thing.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

We could probably solve that with the Digby wharf. It's big enough to help about 10 of you at any one time. We have a monstrosity, of course, that right now is a major fishing area.

Digby is a name that is known throughout fishing communities, certainly all around Atlantic Canada and probably the world. They have this major transfer wharf, which the former government sold to a private interest. It didn't work out. I don't know whether the money was used to repair the wharf or not; apparently not much was done.

Then the wharf was in disrepair and the fishermen were looking for a place to land. The government had to step in and basically get it turned over to a local group who were really concerned, or I think bought it back, even though whoever had it originally had been paid for it. But that's a story for them to work out.

Transport, the ACOA minister as the minister from Nova Scotia, and we are meeting on that, in fact this very week. We have plans; we will look after the people in the Digby area. We will do it, despite the fact that they've been thrown to the wolves. We will be there to make sure they have a place to land.

In relation to the west coast, Ms. Bell raised this question when we were here the last time, and subsequent to that I talked to my good friend—and I say that factually—Minister Penner from British Columbia. We have worked very closely on a lot of touchy projects, and he's always been there, ready to take up his share of the burden. We talked about the best possible way to take care of this.

You get all kinds of arguments: that it is better to leave it alone, or whatever. The safest and securest way seemed to be to remove the possible fuel containers—the tank and another container containing fuel. That is going to be done. We've collectively agreed to pay for the cost of removing them.

That should take care of it. The only concern we have there is the whales that pass through the area. We have to get it done before they come, or we might have to wait until they pass through, in case anything happens and it has an effect on the whales. We don't want that to happen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Minister. I realize many of my colleagues here are bubbling with more questions, but time has expired.

I thank you for your presence here this morning and for your answers to the many questions that were posed.

Committee members, we are going to take a break now. We have to come together for a few moments to discuss some committee business, so we shall reconvene in about five minutes. Thank you.

[Proceedings continue in camera]