Fisheries Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2010

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, honourable member.

There are different interpretations of the report. I do believe that the process is fair and that it distributes quota equally among all licences.

One of the things we have to do is manage that fishery sustainably. I know that a number of years ago a lot of new access was given to the fishery. If you look at it overall--probably in your province as well as mine--there's overcapacity everywhere in the fishery. It's very difficult to manage, because in times of low TAC nobody has a viable enterprise. Then everybody wants rationalization because there's not enough fish to go around.

That being said, we made the decision. There's stability for everyone, because everyone knows this is going forward. So we felt that it was done equitably.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Your time has expired, Mr. Andrews, unfortunately.

Monsieur Lévesque.

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

Two minutes isn't a long time, minister.

I'm asking the question with some reservation because I believe it concerns you.

As you know, an offshore drilling agreement was reached last year. It's an agreement with the James Bay Cree on offshore rights in Hudson Bay and James Bay. Those people held a referendum. The agreement was supported.

We are waiting for legislation to cover this agreement between the federal government, the Government of Quebec and the James Bay Cree. I don't know when we can expect to receive a bill.

In view of the short period of time allotted to me, I'm going back to my colleague Mr. Donnelly's remarks on the act.

Minister, I would remind you that, in the Throne Speech, the government committed to tabling a bill to modernize the fisheries management system, which is obsolete. It is still obsolete.

We strongly encouraged the government to move forward on this matter. That may be the only time we've done that, but, in any case, we did it.

I would like to know whether we can expect a bill to be tabled by the end of the current session.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, honourable member. I can assure you there will be a bill. I don't have a definite date on that right now. I look forward to your support on it. Thank you very much.

On your other question, about the offshore rights with the Cree, I believe it might be an Indian and Northern Affairs issue, but we will check into that.

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

I'm done. I bet I don't have much time left.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

You have five seconds.

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

It isn't just in the parliamentary committees that there's injustice; there's tax injustice as well.

Minister, thank you and your assistants for being here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Monsieur Lévesque.

Mr. Donnelly.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I have two questions, Minister.

In your remarks earlier you mentioned marine protected areas. Is DFO on track with its commitment to implement the promised number of MPAs by 2012?

My second question goes back to the halibut allocation between the commercial and sport fishers. You gave some background that was very helpful. I'm just wondering if you can provide specifics. What is being done at the table to resolve the issue between the two sectors and get to a fairer process and a fairer allocation of halibut?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

On the MPAs, we're working very hard. With MPAs, establishing one is a long process because there's so much consultation and because there are so many stakeholders in our oceans and we have to make sure that the concerns of all are addressed. We are doing all we can, working very closely with all the stakeholders to establish more. We're on track to 2012.

I'm going to ask the deputy too; she probably has more specifics on the halibut issue, if she wants to elaborate.

[Claire Dansereau]

Thanks, Minister.

I can't actually speak to the options that they're discussing because they haven't landed on any of the options yet. They really are working hard together, the people themselves who are affected by any changes in this, and I'd rather not upset the apple cart of their hard work.

First of all, they had to begin to develop a relationship, which was no easy feat because of some of the historical animosity, I guess, and some distrust. So we're working hard at building that, but also we're doing some real analytical work behind some potential options around...I wouldn't say a more fair sharing approach, because the sharing approach had been deemed fair at one point. It just doesn't work now, or it doesn't work for some now. It would be in everybody's best interests to find a solution that we can all live with from this point on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Weston.

Minister, welcome and thank you for being with us today.

You're a first-term member of Parliament and minister, and you climbed quickly the ladder of familiarity with a very demanding portfolio.

As you know, our committee has been focused on aquaculture recently, and you mentioned a study that we're working on. The whole area is bound by two competing concerns: economic development—and you referred to that—and environmental sustainability. Our government's commitment to that has been already alluded to by Ms. Murray in terms of the upholding of the environmental assessment in the Taseko file.

I wonder, given that this is something of concern particularly to British Columbians, if you could elaborate. You have said that there is interest in closed containment, and I would say that our committee members are united in interest in that. Can you tell us a little more about what the government is doing to explore closed containment as an option?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

We have completed a couple of studies on closed containment. The results of one of them can be found on our website. We have also, under the AIMAP program, funded several research projects on closed containment. What we're finding is that, technically, closed containment can be done. It does exist in many areas in smaller-scale operations. So if you have a much higher-value fish, it can be viable with a smaller-scale operation. I think that by continuing to invest in research....

We've come a long way in the last 10 years in our research on closed containment and our research in general on aquaculture. We can make better decisions, and I believe the industry is constantly improving.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Minister.

On behalf of the committee, I want to say thank you for taking the time this morning to appear before us and answer many of our questions here today. I know you have other engagements here.

We're going to take a short recess while the minister departs. The staff will be with us for the remainder of the meeting to answer any further questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I'll ask committee members to please take their seats so that we can resume.

We're going to go back to an original round of questioning.

Ms. Dansereau, I'd like to thank you and the other officials for taking the time today to appear with us and to stay for the remainder of the meeting. Hopefully we can get committee members under control here rather quickly and we'll begin with further questioning.

I believe, Ms. Murray, you have the floor.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

Thanks for being here to answer other questions.

This is a question about the Cohen commission. I appreciate that the department and the minister set that up to inquire into the decline of salmon. Everyone was, of course, delighted at the one-year unexpected increase in sockeye salmon. There are theories about how that might be a one-time event. Trends are very worrisome in general, particularly with the southern stocks.

Are you satisfied that this inquiry is going to achieve your objectives? What are your objectives for the inquiry? Does it look like it's on track? The avalanche of legal documents is of concern to people. The focus on the department is a concern. The relative absence of testimony from scientists and participants from various fisheries communities, and so on, is a concern.

Is there something that needs to be done to refocus the Cohen commission, in your view, or do you view it to be on track to meeting the objectives, and what are your objectives?

[Claire Dansereau]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I may, the department did not set up the Cohen inquiry. It was a decision of the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister to establish, and to have Justice Cohen lead the inquiry into this very important issue. It's not a question of whether or not we are satisfied that it's achieving its objectives because we didn't establish the objectives.

I am actually—I'm on record as saying this many times—pleased with the work that it is doing, that it has been charged with doing. As everybody knows, managing the salmon fishery on the west coast of British Columbia is complex. The science is complex. There are many points of view. So to have a year and a half or two years of specific focus on that question can only be of assistance to everybody that has an interest in this fishery. I have no views on how it is conducting itself.

I know they have a series of scientists being called into the future. I think that the list of people that will be testifying is either on their website now, or will be. It is up to Justice Cohen to continue to do his work and the work of the commission. We have testified, many of us have been called to testify, and will continue to do so.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

It sounds like you have no concerns about this process. Do you have concerns about the adequacy of science with respect to sockeye salmon? Is it adequately funded, adequately focused? Do we have the answers that science should be able to provide us?

[Claire Dansereau]

Certainly I believe that we have been funding it adequately thus far. Having once, way back in my life, been a scientist, I know there's no end of work that science can do if there's more money. There can always be further questions to be addressed.

I believe that having a commission, such as the Cohen commission, with a single focus on that one species will add to the scientific knowledge that we have and will bring out more science. As the minister said, through our science investments, we leverage other science with universities and our partnerships, etc., and we will continue to do that.

I suspect that, according to some, there would never be enough money; there will never be enough science. I do believe that what we have so far has been adequate.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Okay. Well, that's certainly not a view that I often hear. If your view is that we have enough science, and so we have enough information, then surely we must know why our stocks have been declining so terribly over such a long period. I mean, somebody's just not doing the right thing. If we know what the problem is, we should know what to be doing about it. I hope, for the sake of future generations, you're right, but I don't agree.

I'm going to turn the rest of my time over to my colleague.

[Claire Dansereau]

I'd like to clarify, Mr. Chair.

I didn't say we have all the answers—I certainly didn't—and I don't think any scientist would say if we had the money we would have the answer.

Do we know what the actual problem is? No, I don't think so. Would necessarily having more money today allow us to even find that answer? I'm not sure it would.

Science moves in increments and science builds on itself. One day we will understand the dynamics better. We understand them more now than we did 50 years ago, and maybe 50 years from now we'll understand it more. I'm not sure that a large infusion of money at any one time will give you the specific answer if you don't actually know what the questions are.

People are working very hard, in very many areas around the world, to address that very question, and we will continue to do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Andrews.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you.

Getting back to area 23 and area 24 crab management, the minister in her testimony admitted there was some conflict, some confusion on the particular allocation formula. That is confirmed by departmental memos.

There was a recommendation that came from your RDG Faith Scattolon, to you, deputy minister, which recommends that it reconvene the independent panel and get a clarification on the sharing arrangement.

Why wasn't the panel ever reconvened? If clarification was needed, as the minister suggested this morning, why wasn't that done?