Fisheries Committee on May 6th, 2008

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

What length will these vessels be?

[George Da Pont]

I believe between 37 and 42 metres was the specification.

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

Excellent.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Matthews, it's your time.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank the minister and his officials for appearing this morning.

I noticed in your opening remarks, Minister, that you referred to aquaculture funding. Last summer we crossed paths at Harbour Breton, when you made some announcements to alleviate some of the infrastructure pressures, particularly in the community of Pool's Cove, where we have tremendous activity because of aquaculture.

You referenced some $22 million. Will any of that money be used to address infrastructure requirements of communities, say, on the Connaigre Peninsula, like Pool's Cove, or Bellorum, for instance, where there's tremendous commercial fishery activity and aquaculture activity, but a great infrastructure deficit? You're very familiar with the situation, as I am. Is any of that money going into infrastructure, or will the infrastructure requirements try to be met from your small craft harbours budget? Or is there some other plan for funding to address those issues?

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

Generally, the funding we announced for aquaculture is not dealing directly with infrastructure when we're talking about major wharves, etc. However, we have looked at the needs. We have talked to people in the area. We've talked to the companies. We've talked about long-term plans for the area, where the concentrations will be, how it compares with what we have. In some cases we have infrastructure in some of these areas. It's a matter of enhancing the saturation or improving it. In some areas they might be adequate, and there are areas, undoubtedly, because of the shift.... It's like the example I gave, where we build a big wharf, change the fishery, and you need it somewhere else.

I'm sure your colleagues, when they see your area becoming so active, wouldn't mind giving up some of their money to see your area become enhanced.

I'm not sure if there's anything I can add to that.

That's basically it. The money we announce for the companies for research and development, all that kind of stuff, will not be put into infrastructure. But we are aware, and knowing the need, knowing the opportunities, and knowing the potential, we will hopefully be meeting the required infrastructure needs in these areas.

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

I realize that you have existing infrastructure and that some of it is in need of repair because of wear and tear over the years. Then we've had a change in fishery, where some of those wharves need to be extended. In addition to that, of course, we now have this tremendous aquaculture activity, which is very positive for the area--from Harbour Breton all the way up to Connaigre Peninsula to St. Alban's. BI'm wondering if any consideration is going to be given to a federal government program of some sort to try to deal with that. You have your budget, limited as it is, so I'm wondering if there's some thought being given to a plan to address that infrastructure requirement generally within the federal government, with yours and maybe some other departments or agencies.

I notice in some cases Transport Canada has wharves.... In Harbour Breton, we saw one transferred to the small craft harbours program, which was very positive and great for the harbour authority there. I wonder what your response to that might be.

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

Again, discussions are taking place with other government departments. We've seen a lot of old Transport wharves that are still there, that are adequate, that are being used to some degree by the fisheries, and we put a new emphasis on them. We are working with the companies.

By the way, in some cases, the companies involved want more control over the wharves. There will be, undoubtedly, private investment here. Again, there are other government programs that can be used in cases like that.

Are we aware of it? Yes. Are we doing something toward it? Yes. Can I say we have a plan for every community? Absolutely not. Number one, we don't know yet, nor does the company or anybody else, what the needs will be. What we're trying to do is make sure that for today's industry in the area we can make sure they can function properly with what we have, and we'll move quickly to enhance the immediate needs. But over the next few years--two to five years, that type of thing--we need to move quickly and cooperatively to have the infrastructure in place to see the industry grow, which it can.

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

I have reference to Transport Canada's Harbour Breton wharf facility, which was transferred to DFO's small craft harbours program. I think your estimates show a $500,000 transfer with that transaction. I'm wondering what that money gets used for. Will that money be protected for further upgrading or requirements of the Harbour Breton facility, or will it go into the general small craft harbours program for use within the new plan of the Labrador region? I wonder if somebody could answer that for me.

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

I stand to be corrected, but when we transfer a wharf to a community or a marina group, or whatever, we play by the same rules as if we ask for or accept a transfer from somebody else. The money given is not a bribe to get you to take it; it is basically money given to help you bring that wharf up to an acceptable standard, and it's dedicated for the enhancement and improvement of that one facility. That money would be used to upgrade that wharf to bring it up to an acceptable standard. Rather than have them do it first and then turn it over, sometimes it's turned over and the money is given to do the work. That's not going into a general fund, but it's earmarked for that specific project.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Matthews.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Blais.

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

Thank you very much.

Earlier, Minister, I listened with great interest to what you had to say about the various files on which you are working. You said that a file doesn't spend very much time on your desk. That said, I believe that there is one file that has been sitting on your desk far too long. You will know what I am referring to as soon as I tell you the date—November 2006—which is when Rendez-Vous Quebec, the fisheries forum, was held. It is now May 2008, one and a half years later. The Quebec marine community is still waiting for a genuine development plan, a departmental action plan for the fisheries industry in Quebec. I could also list other files, including the shrimp fishery or others, but I think you understand that people are becoming impatient.

I would like to know what commitment you are prepared to make. What timetable will you set so that something might finally be done? In November 2006, you made a public commitment to provide us with something. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for it.

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

Thank you, Mr. Blais.

Mr. Chair, I don't necessarily agree with my colleague. When I say “my desk”, it's something I have control over myself, and when it comes to me for signing or reading, or whatever the case might be, it moves as quickly as possible.

Mr. Blais is talking about discussions coming out of a forum called by the fisheries minister of Quebec that he and I co-chaired, as we did in Newfoundland, New Brunswick, and to a lesser extent in Prince Edward Island. There was also a round table in Nova Scotia, one in which I wasn't directly involved. These were all forums called by the provincial governments. We went in there as co-chairs to work cooperatively with them, which we said we would do.

In these round table discussions we had all of the industry in the province, all except.... Some people in Quebec who didn't participate in it came to the table afterwards, and they have been very cooperative since. In Newfoundland they certainly did, and in New Brunswick everybody was involved--harvesters, processors, marketers, towns, you name it. After lengthy, open, and heartfelt discussion among all of them, committees were put together to come up with a plan to improve the fishery.

The bottom line across the board was an ocean-to-plate concept, meaning you would look at the product in the ocean and then proceed to see how to catch it when it's at its best quality, without affecting other species--for example, avoiding soft shell if it's crab, etc. Then it's how to land it in good shape, how the processors can process it, how much they will need at any one time, and what the best time to market it is. All of this is common sense and it takes coordination, but it's something we haven't seen. Everybody wanted to get out and get as much as they could, sell it as quickly as they could, get a few dollars, and worry about tomorrow afterwards.

That's changing, and as times get tougher, people realize we can get more out of less if we handle it properly. That was our commitment, and we've been doing that.

Coming out of that, a lot of the decisions had to be collective. A lot of it had to be on shore; a lot of the things had to be done by the fishermen themselves, and a lot had to be done by the processors. A lot of it had to be done with provincial regulation. The Quebec government came out with their report just a short while ago. It's very good and very aggressive, and we can participate in a lot of it.

We talked about things we can do at sea. The first one is working with the people in relation to the best time to open seasons and make sure they get their share of the fish. In Quebec we talked about regional shares, which we are developing as we get through the new species. You'll see in the next few days that as we allocate the quotas, they are based on permanent regional shares, as Quebec has asked for, so there'll be stability. Others also want the same thing.

We talked about the shrimp concerns they had. We moved to deal with them as well as we could, realizing this year the price almost doubled, so it wasn't the crisis it was last year.

So we have moved on a number of the things we have under our control. Some of the things will take developing through working with the province, with the fishermen themselves, and with the markets, etc. It's not something a federal or a provincial government can dictate. You can't say, “Here is what you have to do. You have the fish; you have to bring in so much, and here is where you have to land it.” You can't do that. Fishermen have to have some flexibility.

As we see in Newfoundland, what we can do is give them the opportunity to take advantage of buddying up, working together to save costs, and having the ability to buy out others to improve their standing, which they never had before. From our point, it's better management of the resource, etc.

David, there may be a few things we can add. Have we covered all of it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

You covered it off. You'll soon be calling me “Fabian Flexibility”.

Mr. Stoffer, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I apologize to the committee and to the minister for being late this morning. I had a personal matter to take care of.

Mr. Minister, first of all, I want to thank you and your department very much for the effort on behalf of the sealers. I know it was a very difficult winter this year with the Paul Watson group. Personally, I think you handled it very well, so I want to thank you for that.

Also, with respect to the recreational fishing awards yesterday, I know one person from my riding is a very happy man today, so again, thank you for that. And thank you for the heritage lighthouse protection act. Your department worked very well with this committee and others, and your group should be congratulated on that.

My questions are a little different from that. First, as you know, the west coast indicated there will be a shutdown of the chinook fishery this year, although I didn't hear from the U.S. or state governments whether there is any compensation for those fishermen. If indeed Canada goes the same route, or doesn't announce a closure but just doesn't announce any openings, is there any possible compensation for these fishermen in those communities?

Mr. Bevan will know about my second question because I've asked him before. In the far north, in Grise Fiord, Arctic Bay, and Resolute Bay, would there be any opportunities for those fishermen who are wanting some access to the turbot fishery on the other side of the zero A line--and Mr. Bevan indicated that the line couldn't move because it's quite a technical thing within NAFO--to have some economic opportunities from the resource up there?

My third question, sir, deals not just with DFO but also with the provinces regarding the mining act, especially schedule 2. As you know, two lakes in Newfoundland were slated for destruction--two in Nunavut--and we hear there are more across the country, where mining companies can use fresh water lakes as tailing ponds. We're obviously all concerned about the protection of fish habitat and the fish resource itself. I'm wondering whether you plan any changes to that act. In brand-new Bill C-32, even though it says you can only kill fish by means of fishing, the order in council still gives the Governor in Council the authority to kill fish by other means. Unfortunately, filling in healthy aquatic systems with tailing ponds is another means of killing fish.

I'm wondering if you could answer those questions, sir. And I thank you for your time this morning.

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

Thank you very much, Peter. It's good to see you here. Also, thank you for your comments and support in relation to what we did for the sealers. You were quite open and vocal with that, and with your personal support. And thank you for your support of the lighthouse bill as it went through several phases. You solidly supported it right through the process. I appreciate that.

In relation to the shutdown of the chinook fishery, at this stage we don't know what effect it will have. We know what's going on in the U.S; we'll see what will come of it. There is no plan for compensation at this stage. Compensation is always the first thing that comes up whenever there's talk about any kind of downturn or whatever, and it's a slippery slope when you get into it. But we know people depend on it for a living, and sometimes you can mitigate in other ways. But you deal with what you have at the time you have it.

The far north access to turbot is probably becoming, as we say, an issue. Some time ago we did transfers between the fleet that was fishing.... Because of companies getting in or out of the fishery, there was movement back and forth of the large companies, as there always is within an existing quota. There was no disruption or change within the fleet sector, just movement within.

Nunavut was extremely upset. Newfoundland seemed to be upset. I cautioned them, because as it has been historically, it secured that the fish were caught by Canadians and landed in Canadian ports for the benefit of Canadians. Nunavut was upset because it thought that with any change whatsoever, all the fish should go to Nunavut.

Adjacency is a wonderful thing. It is one of the prime reasons we allocate resource. But historic dependence is also very important. If there is a resource that has been developed off British Columbia and somebody else gets the benefit, British Columbia is not going to be happy. They should be the prime beneficiaries.

One of the problems in the north is that they have this great resource of turbot and shrimp, and as we said earlier, they haven't got a wharf to land it on. What is happening, and you've been through this here at committee, is that a lot of that resource is sold in the water to other companies that provide minimal employment--I'm making the same arguments you've made over the years--and then they land it and transship it to other countries, in some cases going into markets duty-free, so we get no benefits except the royalties that are paid to a group.

I have concerns with that. Even though we have tried to maximize the benefits for the people of the north--there's no doubt about that--if we're going to take away something from other Canadians to give to foreign companies, I have concerns about that too. As we open up fisheries and the north has more access, we have to make sure that their people are the ones who benefit, not the Danish or the Finns or anybody else. I think you agree with that, because you've fought that battle for a long time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly appreciate your being here today, Minister. Of course, it's great to have your staff here. We're quite familiar with them here at committee.

When I looked through the performance reports for 2006-07 in the fisheries management program activity, the aboriginal policy in governance planned spending was $119 million; the actual was $116 million. If you look at the aboriginal policy in governance for 2008-09 and the three years out there, it's between $114 million and $117 million. It oscillates a little.

Given that the government has a bill before the House of Commons right now that, if passed, would seriously accelerate the rate at which aboriginal land claims are resolved, has that been taken into consideration in your planned spending?

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

I'll let the economist speak to that. But generally we are aware of the possibility that land claims will be accelerated. As to our involvement, it depends. If the areas affected involve fish or fish habitat, we will be involved. I think we are well aware of the implications and have budgeted for them, but I'll let the experts comment.

David.

[David Bevan]

The budgets we have for aboriginal access to fisheries are not directly related to land claims. They are a bridge.

We are looking at providing additional access. That will be considered as part of the process eventually when treaties are reached, but that does not represent recognition of the aboriginal right to a certain quantity of fish. That's not what it's about; it's about providing further access and a bridge to a treaty at some point. But this access would be provided irrespective of the outcome of the treaty process.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

On the descriptive statement there, I don't want to belabour the issue--I trust you have it in hand--but it seems to me that if we are going to enhance or speed up the process.... The line here says, “policy advice on Aboriginal fishing issues”, which I think is very understandable, “negotiating agreements on the management”, and “integrating agreements into overall management frameworks, advising on land claims and self-government”. I assume that as those kinds of things pick up, so too will the costs associated for the department. It's just a curiosity question on that front.

The only other question I have for you, Minister, is on the report that I think can be expected on the freshwater fisheries management act and the corporation. What are your plans for when that report is released, and what would you like to see happen insofar as the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act and corporation are concerned?

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

Just to sum up the previous answer, we've spent a lot of time and put a lot of money into the east coast and west coast fisheries funding to settle long-standing aboriginal concerns. We've worked closely with them, and a lot of this is leading into treaties. Basically, we are aware of the challenges with the treaty process and without the treaty process. We are going through a process ourselves that won't see a major move in funding regardless of whether we're in treaty negotiations or not; we are making certain moves ourselves. That's why you don't see a major divergence.

In relation to the fresh fish marketing board and the challenge for central Canada, times are changing and markets are changing. I believe the board--and certainly the new chair, who was appointed some time ago--are well aware of this. Immediately they had a solid internal report on looking at options on how they can improve their own lot in order to be feasible and serve customers. That report is completed, and I'm waiting to get my hands on it to have a personal review. Treasury Board also initiated a report independent of us some time ago looking at it. That report is going to be available very soon. I think it is completed.

In our conversations with fishermen from the north--Alberta and Saskatchewan, in particular, and northern Manitoba, and even some of those closer--a number of concerns are being raised. Number one is the quality of the product these days. No longer do you ship in bulk, frozen, etc. We talk about quick access and fresh product on the markets. Because of the better transportation systems, there is ready access to markets now that a lot of people didn't have years ago.

All in all, some people think, maybe as they do with other facilities we have, that they could do a better job themselves if they were allowed to sell directly. But then in some cases they'd say it relates to some species, but there are some species they'd be better off having the marketing board market. It's not a black and white situation, and I think the people see that. I would rather have the fishermen and the marketing board try to find ways of solving this than to have it dictated from afar because someone thinks something works. They know what works, and if decision-makers or people who have control become an obstruction to seeing greater benefits flow to the people, then that's where we would have to step in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

I have to step in, Mr. Minister.

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

What I'm saying is I think we have the potential here if we work collectively to create a system that will benefit all those involved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

I'm sure you don't mind me stepping in now, Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

We have time to do a three-minute question, if that is satisfactory to everybody.

Mr. MacAulay.