Fisheries Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2007

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

There was a 10-year plan, right, or a goal to have the network in place in 10 years, and that's what it seems to me the public needs to understand. How do they figure out whether it has been achieved or not? You can say there's a network now. It seems to me that there were, I think, six as of two years ago.

[Michelle d'Auray]

There are six now and there are three more in development.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

Now over to the Conservative Party for five minutes, from Mr. Calkins, please.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly appreciate everyone appearing here before our committee today.

I have several questions. They are not related to one another, so I'll just go as quickly as I can here. The first one is that I notice there's an item line here for “Funding in support of the Federal Accountability Act to evaluate all ongoing grant and contribution programs every five years”. I'm wondering if somebody here can give me a status on how that funding is proceeding and what kinds of results the department is seeing through that program.

[Michelle d'Auray]

This is essentially a commitment that the government and the Treasury Board Secretariat have made to ensure that every five years all the grants and contributions programs are reviewed and an allocation has been given. This is the first year in which we have received it. In fact, we have just received it to enable us to do this.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

So you will be ramping up right now, then. Is that right?

[Michelle d'Auray]

Yes, we are.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Is there anything you can provide the committee with insofar as, other than the general expectations of what the money is allocated for, how many staff you plan? I would imagine this is to hire some staff to do some reviewing. Is that correct?

[Cal Hegge]

Yes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Have you any idea on how many, and is it going to be contracted or in-house?

[Cal Hegge]

I think it's going to be in-house, but if you would like, we could come back with more details. As the deputy just said, we just got the money. We're just planning now what we're going to do.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I suppose I should let you have a plan first. There will be another time when the estimates come back, I guess, in the spring or whatever the case might be. We'll discuss it then.

[Michelle d'Auray]

In many instances, if I can put it this way, it's to increase, by a few people, our current capacity. Since we didn't have a specific timeline to do the reviews, we now have those timelines. So every five years there is in fact a calendar by which the Treasury Board Secretariat is going to ask us to provide those updates.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Great.

I will move on to a different topic, then. Last spring, as you know, this committee tabled a report dealing with the seal harvest. One of the recommendations in the seal harvest dealt with observers and observer status. I am wondering if there is that, or are there any other aspects of that report that any of the departments can talk to here? Is any progress being made on any of those recommendations? Can you tell me where that report has worked its way through to?

[Michelle d'Auray]

There are a number of items we are acting on in light of that report. Perhaps my colleague Mr. Bevan can respond to some of the specific ones.

[David Bevan]

We are changing the way the hunt is managed to slow it down, to provide people more time to conduct it in a more humane way. It is humane, but we want to make it even more so. There are changes to the marine mammal regulations that are now being consulted on, where we are looking at additional steps that should be taken. On observers, there are changes to those regulations being contemplated that make it clear that it's not just observing the hunt that takes place on the ice, but it's also observing the hunt more generally.

With respect to some of the recommendations on distance, etc., we do have some obligations under the charter. We aren't able to restrict people as much as would have been desired by some of the hunters and perhaps as recommended by the committee, but we are looking at making it clear that there is an obligation on the part of the observer to maintain a distance and not to disrupt the hunt, regardless of whether it is on the ice or taking place from vessels.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Great. I'm glad to hear that.

My last question, I guess, is for the coast guard.

As you know, there has been discussion or talk about seven new ports or small craft harbours in the central and Arctic region for the expansion of an Arctic fishery. I am wondering about the coast guard's perspective. What plans do you have insofar as ramping up for that, for having the ships or the capacity to potentially deal with an expanding Arctic fishery?

[Commr George Da Pont]

We have a significant capacity now in the Arctic. Every year we have seven icebreakers that operate generally between June and November. If the coast guard were required to support additional ports, that would likely be in terms of breaking out ports, and that would likely be in terms of supporting some navigational aids, depending on the port. Those are things we would program into our normal operations.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Great.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

We'll now go over to Mr. Byrne of the Liberal Party, for five minutes, to finish our round.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to follow up on my previous line of questioning on the Larocque decision and its impacts on fisheries management and fisheries science. I've asked for--and you've agreed to be able to provide--a listing of the approximately 100 fisheries science agreements that have been entered into and that have been either terminated or allowed to lapse. Could you provide as well the dollar value, the amount of fish that was actually associated with each of those agreements, and the associated dollar value that each of the organizations was expected to be able to contribute or to expend on science activities as part of the agreement? Obviously you audit them, and there must be some basis of an audit through which you can ensure that those organizations are keeping up with their responsibilities for utilization of that fish. So could you provide that dollar value so that we could know what that was?

As well, could you provide some specifics on what has happened to that fish since the Larocque decision? This is not to suggest that it was redistributed back to stakeholders. I'd really like to know, and I think committee members would like to know, if it was simply given to the original agreement holders or it was given to new entrants into the industry or existing entrants who weren't actually parties to the science agreement?

In the main estimates in the budget announcement of 2007, you indicated there was $10 million allocated for court rulings pressures. That, I assume, would be part of the Larocque decision. But in the supplementary estimates you indicated $16.4 million would be allocated for court rulings pressures, science support for eco-based management and ecosystem-based management. Of the $16.4 million in the supplementary estimates, what actual amount of that was being given for court rulings? Specifically, how much is actually allocated in 2007-08 for replacement of scientific activities now no longer occurring because of the Larocque decision, and are we left with a shortfall?

[Michelle d'Auray]

We can provide you with some of the details, but I don't know if Ms. Huard wants to add something.

[Michaela Huard]

It was $10 million allocated for 2007-08, and $12 million for 2008-09 regarding Larocque, for us to be able to support agreements. That's why, in response to the earlier question of how many were dropped, actually there weren't that many dropped, because with this money we were able to replace them.

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

In the example of the Northern Coalition and the northern shrimp allocation, I understood they were required to expend approximately $5 million on scientific research. That's one of one hundred agreements. That doesn't seem to follow the test of a reasonable person to suggest that we're doing fine.

[Michaela Huard]

Actually, there are a number of them. That's a large one, and I don't know the details of the northern shrimp one, so I'd have to leave it to David, or we'd have to get back to you. But there are a number of them that actually, for one reason or another, we were able to deal with in another way. We had to review each and every one of those projects, and there are quite a number of them.