Fisheries Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2007

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

I have probably used my time, Mr. Chair.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thank you.

Now we go to what we call the five-minute round, folks. So we go to Mr. Byrne from Newfoundland, for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, and thank you to our witnesses.

Mr. Bevan, you mentioned that the Larocque decision had a profound consequence for fisheries management as well as for funding for fisheries management and science. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, over the last number of years, has engaged in partnership agreements with various governmental and non-governmental organizations. Allocations of fish were given to organizations and agreements were struck whereby having been granted access to that fish, the fisheries organizations, with the assistance of DFO, would expend a certain amount of money conducting a scientific protocol. And they would share that scientific data with Fisheries and Oceans. The Larocque decision by the Federal Court, you said, once it was decided, basically made that capacity or that possibility for DFO null and void.

Could you provide a list of all discontinued agreements, the ones that have either been allowed to lapse or have been terminated as a result of the Larocque decision? And could you indicate for us what the consequence has been for the departmental budget?

I will give you one example. In the northern shrimp fishery, Fisheries and Oceans Canada entered into an agreement with the Northern Coalition, allocating, I think, 5,000 metric tonnes of prawns to that organization to conduct science. You have now stated that the agreement has been terminated. Who is doing the science now, and what happened to the 5,000 tonnes of fish? It was granted to the Northern Coalition on the understanding that they were conducting science for the benefit of all users of the resource. Is that science now being done by Fisheries and Oceans? What has replaced it, and who has access now to that 5,000 tonnes?

[David Bevan]

There are well over 100 of these arrangements. There could be as many as 165, or perhaps close to 200. We'll get you the full list.

The one you're using as an example, involving the Northern Coalition, was for an allocation that was used to fund science in the north, in shrimp fishing areas 1 and 2. Those allocations now have been returned and are back in the hands of the fishing interests. We took it away from them; now they are back.

Obviously the fish didn't disappear. It was part of the overall TAC. The discontinuing of arrangements means that the fishermen themselves have higher quotas now than they had before. Under the arrangements, they have the money that those quotas now generate. If there's a desire to find another way to organize, to continue the work, it's up to the fleets to do that. They have the additional cash they otherwise wouldn't have had under the agreements.

The only problem is, as I mentioned earlier, the free rider. There are some who don't wish to pay, and if a minority don't wish to pay, that has an effect on the majority, who don't wish to then incur the costs for the benefit of all, only to have somebody be a free rider on the services that are provided.

We haven't seen a lot of uptake of a different kind of arrangement, but it hasn't been that long since the decision. We are getting ourselves organized. We are looking at what the obligation of the Government of Canada is in terms of science and basic conservation and the kind of information we need to make the right decisions on how to manage the fisheries, versus what was essentially providing an extra benefit for the people who had entered into these agreements.

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

When the initial decision was taken, it was a somewhat controversial decision, if you recall, in the sense that competing interests that were looking for access to that resource accepted the decision at the time that 5,000 metric tonnes of shrimp resource—for the committee's perspective, this is basically the equivalent of anywhere from $5 million to $8 million worth of resource on an annual basis, which is a lot of shrimp.... Other stakeholders that did not get access to that shrimp reluctantly agreed to accept the management plan on the basis that at least valuable shrimp science was being conducted.

What you're telling me, the committee, and all fishery stakeholders is that while the requirement to conduct the science ceased as a result of the Larocque decision, those who were assigned the 5,000 tonnes of shrimp still retained the allocation of the 5,000 tonnes, but with no strings attached. Now it's basically part of their allocation. They do not have any legal requirement under any agreement to conduct any scientific activity.

Wouldn't it have been more appropriate, given the fact that when this allocation was made, when the decision was taken that the 5,000 tonnes was for a specific purpose and that the Northern Coalition were the only participants who could actually effectively do the science and would therefore be the recipients of the 5,000 tonnes.... With the decision to terminate the agreement as a result of the Larocque decision, wouldn't it have been fairer to go back to all stakeholders and say, since science will no longer be done with this, we now have an obligation to share among all stakeholders, all fishing interests that participate in the northern shrimp fishery?

Are you telling me this was not done?

[David Bevan]

I don't have, off the top of my head, all the details around the northern shrimp fishery. As you are aware, it's an extraordinarily complex allocation key, and I can't say how we made those adjustments, off the top of my head—whether it went back to the offshore interests, where most of it came from, and that they are now able to fish that without the strings attached.

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

Would you be able to get that information to the committee?

I have one last question. Does the new Fisheries Act—

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

No, I'm sorry, Mr. Byrne, you're over your limit, sir. You're over your quota.

Mr. Lévesque.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to go back to the question I wanted to ask earlier.

Is the $500,000 earmarked for the transfer of Coast Guard ships set out in the current Supplementary Estimates?

[Commr George Da Pont]

Actually, it's $500,000. I apologize. I was searching for the amount.

No, there's no money for that. The money will be taken out of the Coast Guard budget.

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

In the entire Coast Guard budget, $500,000 surely isn't enormous. I was simply curious as to whether that was currently in the budget.

[Michelle d'Auray]

It's in the budget, but not supplementary funding; we haven't received any supplementary funding for this transition.

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

Thank you, madam.

Unless I'm mistaken, there is the implementation of the Pacific Integrated Commercial Fisheries Initiative. That's in the order of $16.7 million.

Is this a new initiative?

[Michelle d'Auray]

Yes, it's an initiative that Minister Hearn announced this past summer. It's in the order of $175 million. As my colleague Mr. Bevan explained earlier, the purpose of this initiative is to: assist in integrating First Nations fishers into the commercial fishery on the Pacific Coast; to increase our ability to monitor all commercial fisheries on the Coast; and to enhance local fisheries monitoring and surveillance. I don't know if you want to know more about that.

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

No, that's fine.

I also note that funding is allocated in order to comply with the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Act.

Can we have some explanation on that subject? There is very nearly $2 million.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Yes. Essentially, this funding is allocated to the department. It appears among the amounts allocated on an overall basis to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs to monitor treaties and initiatives.

So this is the portion that goes to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to implement and monitor initiatives and treaties concerning fishing activities.

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

Thank you, madam.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Monsieur Lévesque, you still have two minutes, if Monsieur Cardin would like to ask a question.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

That's fine, Mr. Chairman; I'll leave him all my time.

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

Perhaps I could use it just to ask one supplementary question.

The funding to address an operating shortfall appears to be in the order of $16 million, doesn't it? We note: “Funding to address an operating shortfall (unanticipated settlement of a contractual claim)”.

[Michelle d'Auray]

That's an agreement that we negotiated with a supplier about which we cannot disclose any information. However, it's essentially for a contract that we had to terminate.

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

All right, thank you.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Merci.

Now we'll turn it over to Mr. Allen, but before we do, I want to welcome to the committee Ms. Julia Lockhart from Vancouver, B.C., who, after she gets the fine tutelage from Mr. Knowles, will be our new clerk of our committee. We want to welcome you very much to the committee.

[Julia Lockhart, Procedural Clerk]

Thank you.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Mr. Allen, you'll have five minutes, please, sir.