Fisheries Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I call this meeting to order.

I'd like to thank the minister for coming today to meet with the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

I know I don't have to go through the procedures with you. You've been here several times in the past. You'll probably hear that famous beep of noise from up front here when the time expires for members, so perhaps you could begin to bring your comments or remarks to a conclusion at that point in time.

To begin, I would ask that you introduce the guests that you have with you here this morning. If you have an opening statement, you could proceed right into that at this point in time.

The floor is yours.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to everyone. I just want to pass my appreciation on to the committee members for all the work they do in the name of fisheries.

With me this morning is Claire Dansereau, Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans; David Bevan, the associate deputy minister; and Kevin Stringer, the assistant deputy minister of programs.

I'll get right into my opening comments. I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today and say a few words about my department's aquaculture initiatives.

I know that several of you have recently returned from a tour of aquaculture facilities in western Canada and the U.S., so I don't need to tell you how important the industry is becoming. Already, aquaculture production accounts for at least 6,000 full-time direct jobs in Canada and close to 10,000 spinoff or support jobs. It provides more than $1 billion annually to our GDP and accounts for almost 30% of our country's total yearly seafood production and fish landings.

Aquaculture operations now exist in every province in Canada and Yukon, and produce an annual harvest of almost 145,000 tonnes per year.

In some of our coastal communities, I can frankly say that aquaculture has rescued local economies and given them new opportunities. Take the town of Belleoram, on the south coast of Newfoundland, as an example. Belleoram and its fishing industry date back to the late 18th century, but the town had fallen on hard times in recent years. Unemployment was soaring, social problems were on the rise, and it looked as if the town was in danger of disappearing. Now, thanks to a hugely successful aquaculture project, there's close to full employment again in that town. Businesses have reopened and the community is thriving.

On the west coast, there's a striking success story involving the first nations community of Ahousaht on Vancouver Island, where aquaculture has also provided a dramatic boost to what had been a struggling economy.

These two examples point out one of the main strengths of the aquaculture industry: developments occur primarily in coastal and rural communities where other economic opportunities can be transient. Many of the jobs created by aquaculture are full-time and permanent. They can give a community back its strength while at the same time showing respect for the environment. Even in the uncertain financial times we have endured over the past few years, the aquaculture industry continues to offer exciting new opportunities for Canadians, providing permanent jobs, economic growth, and stability.

Maintaining this momentum depends on two key ingredients: partnership and market access. It is our job, as the Government of Canada, to create the conditions for industry to succeed and thrive, but it is the industry itself that has to seize upon this opportunity. In today's economic climate, strong partnerships among governments and stakeholders are needed more than ever, especially when we consider the shared responsibilities of aquaculture management.

The Government of Canada is committed to working with the provinces and territories, first nations, industry, and the science and conservation communities to build a sustainable and prosperous industry for the future.

We saw a perfect example of this kind of partnership last month at the meeting in St. John's of the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers. The council gave its formal approval to the national aquaculture strategic action plan initiative--NASAPI, as we call it. As a result, for the first time ever, we have seen an agreement in place that has been endorsed by the federal government, provinces, territories, and industry. That level of consensus does not happen easily or often.

NASAPI was launched to develop targeted action plans to encourage sustainable aquaculture development in all regions of the country. Each action plan will set precise and realistic objectives to be achieved within a five-year timeframe.

As minister, I understand the importance of innovation in aquaculture. Developing new practices and technologies reduces costs, improves protection of the environment, and generates greater market value for products.

NASAPI will help achieve these goals, and we will measure and report on our progress regularly. We will also update and renew these plans to ensure that they remain responsive to the needs of Canadians and the aquaculture industry.

Over the past two years, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has also been actively involved in examining closed-containment technologies that might be applied to the salmon aquaculture industry.

My department is contributing financial support toward the further development of closed-containment technologies and has recently completed a financial feasibility study of various systems.

The study concluded that certain closed-containment technologies are technically feasible, but are currently challenging from a financial perspective. The results of the study are available on my department's website. Work is continuing on that file.

Another example of our commitment to aquaculture can be found in our response to last year's decision by the British Columbia Supreme Court. In February 2009 the court ruled that aquaculture is a fishery and therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Given that decision, and with the cooperation of the Province of British Columbia, we've moved quickly to ensure that the industry had the structure that it needs in place to allow it to continue to grow and prosper.

We saw the opportunity to take action and move forward with a new federal management regime. As a result, before December 18 this year we'll be ready to officially implement new regulations under the federal Fisheries Act for aquaculture in B.C. In fact, I expect to visit British Columbia within the coming weeks to sign a memorandum of understanding with the province.

I think committee members will agree that it is an incredible accomplishment. We have gone from a standing start to a full implementation of a completely new program in just over 20 months. We want the aquaculture industry to succeed over the long term and we want it to maintain its distinguished international reputation.

I can also point with pride to two DFO programs aimed at fostering innovation and market access by companies involved in aquaculture: the program for aquaculture innovation and market access, which we call AIMAP; and the aquaculture collaborative research and development program, or ACRDP.

In the first two years of AIMAP, we have funded 60 projects with a DFO contribution of $8 million. For example, we provided $1.2 million to Canaqua Seafood Ltd. of Advocate Harbour, Nova Scotia, toward its work in tank farming Atlantic halibut.

In western Canada, we invested more than $630,000 in six aquaculture projects in British Columbia to help companies develop and adapt technologies that will benefit our fisheries. Our direct spending under AIMAP leveraged an additional $22 million in investment from other partners. We are currently in the process of announcing the projects approved in year three of the program.

In the first three years, ACRDP funded 154 projects valued at $14 million. The result is better fish protection, optimal fish health, and protection of the environment.

I know there are Canadians who have raised concerns about the growth of aquaculture in Canada and its potential impact on the environment, and on wild species. Let me assure committee members that my department takes these concerns very seriously. That's why our scientists continue to play an integral role in the risk assessment process, both through our own research and through rigorous reviews of work done outside the department.

In fact, DFO has conducted shellfish aquaculture research since the 1960s, and salmon and trout aquaculture research since the 1970s. This research provides us with confidence that the environmental effects of aquaculture are well understood and properly managed.

In addition, in the vast majority of cases, proposed aquaculture operations undergo a thorough environmental assessment before facilities can be approved. These measures might include choosing appropriate locations for sites to avoid important or sensitive habitats, incorporating periods of inactivity into site production schedules, or adjusting production levels based on environmental monitoring performance.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada and other federal, provincial, and territorial government departments also monitor aquaculture operations to ensure they continue to meet regulations.

I'm confident that committee members share a desire for the nation's aquaculture sector to be self-sufficient, competitive, and prosperous. We have established a solid basis for the future, and I look forward to helping chart the future for this dynamic industry. Its future can be virtually limitless. Currently, our aquaculture industry ranks 16th in the world in terms of production. There's no reason why we can't exceed many of our competitors.

We have a tremendous opportunity to build an industry that will survive and thrive for decades to come, and to do so in a way that's environmentally sustainable.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be pleased to answer any of your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Madam Minister.

Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Madam Minister, for being here at our committee and for taking the time to update us on the aquaculture work.

I have a couple of sets of questions, but I'd like to start with a concern from my province of British Columbia.

We know that the decision to stop the Taseko Prosperity mine involved a number of cabinet ministers, including this minister. We also know that the cabinet decision to block Taseko Mines' Prosperity project required four ministers to sign off on it for it to be considered a cabinet decision.

The minister is aware, from other conversations, that there are strong indications, from highly abnormal share trading and plunging prices associated at the time that cabinet was making its decision, that there may have been a cabinet leak. So I have a few questions about that.

Minister, what date did you sign off on the Taseko Mines decision? Who in your office knew about this decision? Has your office handed over any and all information about the deal to the RCMP and the PCO?

There was another project that was approved, the Mount Milligan project, that also affected inland fisheries. Are you confident that there was no leak involving this project?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Well, honourable member, I thought we were here to talk about aquaculture this morning, but I can tell you that the government rejected this project based on the environmental assessment. The environmental assessment showed that the project would do irreparable harm to the environment.

I can't speak about cabinet operations, because that is confidential information.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Can you get back to this committee on it?

My understanding was that there would be a broader discussion about fisheries concerns, not solely focused on aquaculture.

I understand if you don't have these answers at your fingertips, but we would appreciate information around who knew about the decision and whether—

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Cannon, state your point of order.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My honourable colleague across the way was a provincial cabinet minister, and understands that once you sign an oath to public duty, there's a confidentiality requirement. So she's stepping outside that boundary.

As the minister said, she can't divulge information on cabinet discussions. There's no way that she can provide this information, unless you're going to ask her to, you know, perjure.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

That's not a point of order, and I hope the chair will—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Ms. Murray, I'll decide if it's a point of order, thank you.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I can make whatever requests I want.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

On your point of order, Mr. Cannan, first, it is not a point of order.

Secondly, the minister can provide any information that she feels she can provide outside of the cabinet confidentiality, and I know the minister is aware of that.

Thank you.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, having been a cabinet minister, I'm aware that the content of a cabinet decision will be confidential, but is the minister suggesting that the date of cabinet decisions is confidential? That's not my understanding.

So I'm asking who knew about the decision, when the decision was signed off by the minister's office, and whether information has been handed over to the RCMP.

If those facts aren't available to the minister, I would welcome the answer in written form at the time the minister's able to access that information.

Will that be forthcoming?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

No, it won't. My response to your question will be what it was. I can't speak about cabinet confidentiality. Cabinet operations are confidential.

We made a decision, based on the environmental assessment, that it would cause irreparable harm to the environment.

Those are my comments on that question.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

Well, I know the minister doesn't intend to hide behind cabinet confidentiality, and I will encourage the minister to check that information and provide it.

I do have a concern about some information in the 2009-10 estimates. It's a very general question.

I appreciate the focus on aquaculture development and the view that the future is limitless, and so on. I understand the importance of aquaculture to jobs. Of course, it's also a great concern that there may be interactions between aquaculture and the wild salmon in British Columbia, where many of the stocks have been declining over the years.

Minister, we're all aware of the importance of habitat management, management of the ocean, protected areas, and science for having a healthy foundation so that we can have industrial fisheries and aquaculture sustainably. So I note the huge reductions in the budget for ocean management and healthy and productive aquatic ecosystems.

I'm wondering if the minister can explain why there's almost a 50% reduction in spending between 2008-09 and 2009-10 in the area of healthy and productive aquaculture ecosystems. Are the ecosystems and their sustainability not a priority for this minister?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Honourable member, of course we understand the importance of healthy oceans. That's why we have five large ocean management areas that are at various stages of development. We have developed about 15 marine protected areas.

The funding for these could be in various places in the budget, so I can't speak specifically to the line that you're speaking to, but we have created those marine protected areas and we've undertaken extensive consultation.

As you know, right now there are consultations happening on a large new ocean management area off the coast of British Columbia, because we do take the health of the oceans very seriously.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

So there's no specific rationale for decreasing the spending on oceans management, habitat management, and science from $231 million down to $140 million.

How many jobs were lost from the major decimation of the program for healthy and productive ecosystems?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

I'm going to ask the deputy to respond to that specifically.

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

Thank you, Minister.

There have been no jobs lost as a result of the re-coding of how we indicate that we spend the money. So it's not a question of reduction in work. It's not a question of reduction in priority. It's more a matter of how the money is distributed across the priorities within a coding system. So there will be concurrent increases in other areas showing that the money has been transferred from one to the other, primarily to the coast guard.

We changed the way we code our moneys. The coast guard receives money on a regular basis. We pay them to help us in the science. They are the platform from which we do the science. So a decision was made to allocate moneys to them at the start of the year, and rather than code it to science, we coded it to the coast guard.

We would be happy, though, to come back to talk about our supplementary estimates and the budget process.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

I'm particularly concerned about the cuts to science, which have also been experienced by scientists from British Columbia who have spoken to me. One of the key things constituents and people concerned about the fisheries in British Columbia are asking for is a restoration of funding for science.

We know there's an inadequacy in the science, both for issues like sea lice impacts on wild salmon and in terms of the salmon more broadly. Scientists will say there's a “black box” in terms of what's going on with the fish. It's a huge concern to see that science budget cut in these estimates.

Lastly, I do have some questions. We've been dealing with the snow crab decision, to reduce the snow crab allowable catch. The minister took a decision in 2009 that had a major risk of steepening the decline in the biomass of snow crab.

Could the minister tell the committee what advice she took that led to the maintaining of the allowable catch even though the scientists had warned there was almost a 50% chance of a significant steepening in the biomass decline, which did come out? Who influenced the minister's decision on this matter in deciding against the scientific advice?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Thank you.

Honourable member, first of all let me clarify something. As the deputy commented, there have been no cuts to science. I want to make sure that's on the record. As a matter of fact, we've increased our science. We do more partnering with universities; we have MOUs with other countries where we cooperate on science so we maximize the return for our science investment.

What the deputy did say is that as opposed to some of the funds being on a DFO science line in the budget, they are now on the coast guard line because they actually provide the platform for us to do science. There have been no cuts in science. I want to make that clear. We are doing a lot of things in cooperation with other organizations that allow us to have more science for the investment.

With respect to the snow crab decision back in 2009, I did not exceed the science advice on the snow crab TAC. As you are aware, there's an advisory process, which the industry is very much involved in, when the science is done on snow crab. The department provides me, for my final decision, a range of TAC that could be approved with a number of decisions. They make a recommendation.

While I did not take the recommendation, I met several times with the industry, who did not agree with our science. They were looking for status quo, for a rollover of the TAC from the previous year. They were well aware of the risks involved in this. As a matter of fact, if you'd like, I could produce the notice to fishers that spelled out the risk with rolling over the TAC. They were made well aware of it.

I consulted with our science folks who assured me that rolling over the TAC would not do irreparable harm to the stock. It was a one-year rollover only, because TACs are set on an annual basis. As a result of that, the TAC did take a big drop the next year, but I don't think it was any surprise to the fishers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Minister.

If you would like to provide that document to the committee clerk, I'd appreciate that. Thank you.

Monsieur Blais.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen, good morning and welcome.

Minister, I've already said this publicly—and I am repeating it again today—that you've made some good decisions in recent months about the seal file. Your stay in China was very much appreciated, as is your commitment to this file.

However, it is unfortunate to see that, in another matter concerning a species of seal, the grey seal, the story is completely different. I don't know how many years I've had occasion to talk to you about this. I have had occasion to speak to you about grey seals a number of times, and you had made some commitments. Even your predecessor, Loyola Hearn, did the same thing.

However, this is December 2010—it will soon be 2011—and nothing specific has been announced. The only decision that was announced was in June 2009, when you said in a press release that there had been "direction by the minister to the department to ensure the targeted removal of grey seals." That was in June 2009. You added in that same press release that it was by taking those steps at that time that you would be able to achieve results. That was in June 2009; this is December 2010; it will soon be 2011; and absolutely nothing has been done about the grey seals. You know perfectly well that grey seals are still living off resources, all kinds of resources, not just what's left of the cod, but also crab and lobster. The testimony has been eloquent on that point.

I don't want to accuse you of poor management, but I'm obliged to do so in this case. I would like to hear what you have to say about this file in particular.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, honourable member.

I know this is something that you're very concerned about and it's something I'm very concerned about, too. The explosion in the numbers of grey seals, I am well aware, is an issue that has to be addressed. We have done a lot of work on the seal file. Of course, what we do has to be supported by science. So there was a lot of work done on the science of the grey seal file, particularly in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. We can now say with certainty that the seal population is affecting the rebuilding of cod.

With respect to other species and the effect of grey seals on lobster and crab, we can't say with certainty yet, but the science is ongoing. We did some work on coming up with an acceptable method to decrease the number of seals in the Gulf of Lawrence, but I have to say, thank you for your patience, because it's something that we're still working on.

We've put a lot of effort into trying to open new markets and develop new products. I know that you're thinking that grey seals don't provide a lot of usable products, but we would like to get to a place where we can have full utilization of the animal, and work is ongoing in that field. Work is also ongoing on opening markets for those potential products, and for those products that are also available now. So we expect to hear from the Chinese very soon on this. The Chinese have come to Canada and inspected our plants, including their equivalent of our CFIA. We're expecting to hear back from the Chinese very soon.

But I do understand this is a big issue. It's an issue of biodiversity and it's upsetting our whole ecosystem. I'm confident that we will have something in place. I'm hoping of having something in place for the next—