Fisheries Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2010

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

Pardon me for interrupting you, but time is passing very quickly. With regard to the global aspect of fisheries, there is a sword of Damocles over our heads in that there are ongoing international negotiations. Some are even underway in Europe right now.

We are wondering what will happen to the wharf grants—which we consider as such—the employment subsidies, with regard to unemployment insurance and so on, grants to assist businesses and fishing boats to modernize? They may become prohibited grants. They're in the red zone. That's at the international level, and that's even affecting the future of the fisheries. If those grants are eliminated, what do we do? The fishermen will wind up alone? The fishing industry will wind up alone?

Does that concern you as well?

[Claire Dansereau]

I know the negotiations are ongoing. I'm not at all an expert on the negotiations as a whole. It would be a good idea to bring in someone from the Department of Foreign Affairs to discuss the talks as a whole to see whether they are ongoing. The ones you refer to are called the Doha Round. There is very little discussion underway right now, I believe, on those questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Donnelly.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The minister referenced in her remarks with regard to staffed lighthouses that essentially they're waiting for the Senate committee's work to conclude on this. Is that essentially the department's view, that once this work is concluded and there is, I'm assuming, a recommendation or a series of recommendations, action will be taken at that point, or no action will be taken?

Can you just clarify the work plan there?

[Claire Dansereau]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

The normal procedure is that the Senate committee is looking at the question, as your committee does, and will provide a report. We will then be in a position to respond to that report, as with any standing committee report, when we see what they come up with or find out.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Okay.

Going back to the Fisheries Act for a second, the minister referenced a new act coming out at some point. She mentioned, I believe, that it would be based on previous acts and the consultation around those two previous acts, I think. Both of those were not successfully implemented.

So if they weren't successful and there has been no new consultation, is this act a different act? Will it contain anything different from what was previously submitted? And if it is a new act and there are new elements to it, has it received as wide a consultation process as the previous act did?

I will just add that, when there was consultation, I understand the stakeholders were not happy with the act. So I'm a little confused as to why the act, if it's unchanged, is coming back or being reintroduced, and why there's an expectation of our support, as the minister has asked a number of us if we would support it. I can't see why we would support something that's unchanged and that wasn't successful in the past, and why it would be successful now.

[Claire Dansereau]

I was not at the department at the time, but my understanding is that the previous act died on the order paper. It was never debated and never defeated. So if the act were reintroduced, the consultation that went into, certainly, the last version of it would be deemed to be the consultation required—at least to get it to the first stages. That's not to say there wouldn't be additional consultations once it were in the public.

So it's really not the case that the act or the consultation was not sufficient, it's just that the House schedule being what it was, the act did not make its way through the system.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Well, I can say that from our party's perspective, it was not going to receive support because of the concerns from many of the stakeholders across the country.

So can you clarify whether the new act is going to be the same or going to be changed?

[Claire Dansereau]

I can't clarify that at the moment, but I can say that there would be, if there were an introduction, room for consultation.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Moving to MPAs, the minister mentioned in her remarks that it is a long process to establish a marine protected area, which I fully appreciate. That was getting to my question on fulfilling the 2012 commitment. It seems that the government is far behind in achieving that full commitment, given the length of time it takes to achieve sign-off for an MPA.

I'm wondering if you could clarify how it is you feel that the department is on track, given that we're not even halfway to our commitment.

[Claire Dansereau]

A very significant portion of the work is on developing the areas of interest. There are two rounds of consultation. One has to do with establishing areas of interest from which we can select a marine protected area. There's consultation at each stage, and significant progress has been made on quite a number of areas of interest. So the final stages for those will be much more quickly done.

So I'm fairly confident--I can't say I am 100% confident, but I am fairly confident--that we will be able to meet our targets.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

I'm out of time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Donnelly.

Mr. Cannan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses.

I want to start with the Justice Cohen inquiry, the timeline. What's your understanding of it? Is it on schedule? What's the anticipated final report date?

[Claire Dansereau]

It depends on the definition of “schedule”. As I think everyone knows, Justice Cohen asked for an extension of time for his interim report, which was due out in August, according to the first terms of reference. He asked for and received permission to extend that to October, which he did, and came in on time.

So I don't know; it's between the commission and others whether or not there would be an extension on the second phase. I don't know if he has asked for one, and I don't know if it would be granted if he were to ask.

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

Thank you.

Going back to the issue of lighthouses, safety is paramount, as Minister Shea and all of us around the room realize. I come from the interior of British Columbia, so it's not a big safety issue in my constituency, but it is an issue for the economics of our province and our country.

In flying over with the committee a few weeks ago, having the opportunity to see first-hand some of the challenges, I can see the importance, after talking with a helicopter pilot, of using the lighthouse for both visual and audio warnings.

From an economic perspective, we're hearing from the coastal communities that if there's an oil spill, for example, it takes human resources to be able to respond quickly. That would be a possible role they would play.

It would come into a bigger picture. We heard from some of the witnesses when we visited the aquaculture sites. It concerns me, the amount of dollars that are being funneled in by our friends from the south. Americans are funding these organizations under the guise of environmental protection, but it seems to be stymying economic opportunities.

Do you look at the lighthouse issue from an economic perspective as well as a safety perspective?

[Claire Dansereau]

Thank you for the question.

The issue of other “activities”, if I can use that word, that a lighthouse keeper might do, rather than just the lighthouse itself...because there's a distinction, certainly in the minds of some, between the purpose of the light versus the purpose of the lighthouse keeper.

As the minister said, there's never been any question of reducing the number of lights or the safety to mariners. The question of what other activities the lighthouse keepers may have is precisely the question that the minister asked the Senate committee to look at, and that's what it is investigating at the moment.

So I don't know the answer, and I'm not sure if this is answering your question on whether or not we consider economic development as part of our thinking. It would not be something that we would consider. It's not our mandate. That's not what we're funded for. We are, however, interested in knowing what are....

There was such a general outcry of concern around the other activities that a lighthouse keeper may engage in that it was important for us to determine what those are, and, if they are important functions, where they should be housed. Is it necessary that they be with us, and with lighthouse keepers, or could they be somewhere else?

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

Thank you.

With regard to aquaculture, we had a tour of an experimental closed containment facility in Middle Bay. It's been under way for a number of years. They hope to have the fish and the water up and running this spring as, hopefully, a viable test site. I was wondering, from the department's perspective, if that's the one you're looking at as a model, procedurally, for economic viability.

I have a supplemental question on the December 18 implementation. As it is under federal jurisdiction, as the B.C. Supreme Court has ruled, you are taking over responsibility. What's the application process for new aquaculture licences? Are we entertaining applications, or are we on hold?

[Claire Dansereau]

If you don't mind, I'll answer the last part of the question first.

As you know, the province will continue to play a significant role in new licences, because they have to lease the land—

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

Crown land, right?

[Claire Dansereau]

—the crown land--below the water. That would always be the first step in an application. If they can't get a lease for that, we wouldn't engage in the conversation.

Are we ready to accept a whole series of new applications? We haven't heard of many. People have not been approaching us on them. We will definitely be ready to take on our responsibilities for managing what's there and for analyzing any new applications that come in.

I'll ask Kevin to address the question of which sites have been considered for the closed containment work. I'm not sure if the one you mentioned was one we actually looked at, and I'm not sure if Kevin would know either.

[Kevin Stringer]

We're aware of all of the ones that are taking place. We're following them very closely. There have been a number of meetings on closed containment that we've chaired and that we've participated in with stakeholders. We're contributing financially to some of the demonstration projects and some of the research on closed containment. I'm not certain about that specific one. I know that we know about virtually all of them that are taking place. We are making financial contributions to projects.

The minister mentioned, as well, the research we've done. We had an expert process on technical feasibility about a year ago. We pulled all the stakeholders together. We've also recently released a financial analysis of economic feasibility, which speaks to some of the financial challenges related to closed containment. We're involved in all parts of the file and are following it very closely.

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

I know that the individuals involved were very appreciative of the federal government's support and of the sustainable development technology credits that have been applied to date. We'll watch that with great interest.

Kevin, while I have your attention at the moment, the issue we're also studying in aquaculture is the issue of sea lice. When we went to visit with the Washington fisheries department, we talked about SLICE. When we had your colleague here earlier this year, we talked about SLICE and the fact that the Americans use it down in Washington. The Washington officials said that they don't use SLICE.

I'm just wondering if you're familiar with the contradiction. Have you had a chance to look into the difference in the trains of thought here?

[Kevin Stringer]

I would say a couple of things with respect to that.

One is that we recently became aware that you had heard that. We are trying to check that out to see what does, in fact, happen in Washington State and whether they simply don't use it or are not allowed to use it. Our understanding is that it is...but we are checking that out, since we've heard that you did hear that.

The second thing I would say is that what happens in Canada is subject to a process led by PMRA. They do an environmental risk assessment. They check against our standards, and they approve only products and processes that we believe, according to our standards, are acceptable.

We are checking out what we heard about Washington State.

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

It is very interesting. I found that the issue didn't seem to be maybe as severe as some of the environmentalists made it out to be, but it wasn't quite as good as the industry made it out to be. Somewhere in the middle is always the balanced approach. I would appreciate that information as it comes forth, as well.

The last question has to do with coastal safety. It was brought to my attention, by a few of my colleagues from the coastal communities, that search and rescue is looking at changing their fleet. In Campbell River and Prince Rupert, there are two 71-foot search and rescue ships, and there's a tender for a 47-foot fleet to replace them. The issue is that one size doesn't fit all. I was just wondering if that's a done deal or if they're still open to negotiations to keep the 71-foot fleet in place.