Fisheries Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2010

[Claire Dansereau]

All the analysis shows that the 47-foot vehicle is much better suited to the conditions. It's much more agile. We could have the coast guard here to answer this in more detail, but it is truly a better craft for the area. It can actually do an Eskimo roll. It's much better suited for the waters in which it will be functioning.

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

I'm not an expert on it, but I know there are individuals in the audience who live on the west coast and live and breathe this. They'll say you can only go out for a day with its fuel supply and you have to turn around. It's limited by different weather conditions. I think they need to have a second look and consult with the people who live and breathe in the marine...on the west coast.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Claire Dansereau]

We can certainly provide a technical briefing on it for you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

We'll move to a two-minute round.

Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

Ms. Dansereau, I'd like to request written substantiation to the committee of your claim that the funding support for healthy and productive aquatic ecosystems has been maintained. Your documents say that the funding was 50% higher in 2008-09 than in 2009-10, so maybe you can provide that analysis to support your contention.

Second is on aquaculture and wild salmon. I appreciate Ron for bringing the Washington trip back to memory. When we asked why they were not doing much in the way of salmon aquaculture, they said it was because their focus was on restoring the wild salmon stocks, and those two things were not consistent with each other.

When I read the minister's remarks they are all about industrial aquaculture, and that the government's job is to create conditions for industry to thrive, etc. Yes, but in my view that is conditional on the health, strength, and restoration of the wild fisheries. We just don't see that being a priority. It's barely nodded to in here.

Having been a minister at a time when some members in the province were hiding behind DFO's research and absence thereof year after year, that was impeding decisions around the wild fishery and salmon aquaculture. The research was absolutely not adequate. There was not enough being done. It was not reaching conclusions. I don't see anything different in the department's approach or the minister's approach today.

Can you assure us that wild salmon fish stocks are a priority? How can you demonstrate that, given the minister's comments and the lack of funding increases to support that science and wild salmon stock recovery?

[Claire Dansereau]

For the department and the minister, the wild salmon fishery and all of the wild fisheries are of paramount importance. There has never been a reduction in our sense of priority around those fisheries. We are equally interested in them, whether it's the recreational fishery or the stocks themselves.

The minister's speaking points were addressing the issue of aquaculture itself, but she is equally concerned about the wild stocks and will continue to be so. Everything we are trying to do through taking over some of the responsibilities for aquaculture is to better integrate the science on both sides and the management on both sides to make sure there's a true linkage between what is happening on the farming side and what is happening on the wild side. It is an absolute, fundamental priority of the department and of the minister to make sure that the two can coexist.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Lévesque, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I believe someone's really trying to push me toward the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Ms. Dansereau, I'd like to go back to the grey seals. This morning, the minister told us that they are still dealing with scientific research and that they don't know how many years more they will be doing that.

Wouldn't it be possible to have a transitional measure, for example, by waiting until the scientific research is done so the grey seal population can stop growing as it is doing? They've nearly reached Abitibi.

I would also like to address another topic: aquaculture. We know what happened in British Columbia. Could the same thing happen in Quebec?

[Claire Dansereau]

Do you mean the same thing from a regulatory standpoint, with regard to the transfer of responsibilities?

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

Yes.

[Claire Dansereau]

On the grey seal issue, you heard the minister. This is a major priority for her, and we are continuing to do our job in that regard. We even convened a major scientific symposium where researchers from across Canada met to discuss the question and to look at the impact of grey seals on biodiversity. The report from that symposium will be published very soon, I believe. A number of researchers are involved in this discussion and are thus conducting a major debate among themselves to be sure they come up with the right answer. We're continuing to do our job on that issue.

As for aquaculture, we do not intend to extend our responsibilities. What happened in British Columbia was the result of cases in the courts, and we have no other cases in the courts at this time. We believe our shared jurisdiction systems are well established.

One question, among others, arose in British Columbia: would the system we had for sharing jurisdictions really be based on actual and territorial jurisdictions, and the court said no. So we changed our way of doing things, but it is not clear that the same is true in Quebec or elsewhere. We are quite satisfied with the way sharing is being done right now, and I believe Quebec is as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Donnelly.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In her remarks, the minister referenced the 2010 Fraser River sockeye return and the abundance that happened. I know that the 2009 run was a complete collapse. It was predicted there would be over 10 million returning, and around one million returned, so it was a 90% reduction, essentially a collapse. We have the Cohen inquiry studying that issue, and it will hopefully put some recommendations forward to avoid that in future.

Then we turned around in 2010 and had quite a spectacular return. The department still predicted about 10 million or 11 million would return, and there were almost 30 million. At one time it was said that over 30 million returned, and I think that was then adjusted to under 30 million. Essentially there doesn't seem to have been any idea from the department about what kind of returns would be coming back in those two years alone. We look at 2009, and the prediction was 10 million or 11 million; we look at 2010, and the prediction was roughly 10 million or 11 million in that area. Both are wildly off.

How is it that the department is able to say with any degree of confidence that you're on top of this situation and say that the wild fishery is being managed well, or that you're confident of the returns and the management systems in place?

[Claire Dansereau]

Thank you for the question. It's one that the Cohen inquiry is looking at, so I will not try to guess where they will go with this.

The scientists themselves are the first to say that what they can do is provide, based on certain facts they have, a range. They're never comfortable giving a pinpoint estimate, but given all of this they're often pushed into giving the pinpoint estimate, and that's when we're generally wrong. When we give a range, that tends to be generally correct. We tend to fall within the range, but it's a broad range, and it's not a range that people find very interesting, because it's too big. But it is based on the science as we know it, and it's based on us recognizing that we don't necessarily know what happens or where they go when they go out to the depths of the ocean.

We can predict what happens based on what goes out and on the conditions when they're coming back in but not on what happens when they're in the ocean.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Donnelly. Your time has expired.

Mr. Weston.

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

First, in your considerations of aquaculture, Madame Dansereau, please don't forget that Agro Marine has a very lively operation in China. In terms of the impact on Canadian jobs and the technology being demonstrated there, I hope you will take that into account.

Second, in terms of supertankers on the west coast, I understand there are some 3,000 a year on the west coast and six times that number on the east coast. It's an issue that concerns British Columbians and all Canadians. There is something called the Pacific north coast integrated management area process, and I ask you this: If this isn't a DFO responsibility--and I understand DFO is not funding it —then don't we expose ourselves to the possibility that U.S.-based interests could be funding that process? And those could have an interest in stopping tankers going off our west coast because of the advantage that would be gained by Americans if all the supertanker process were there instead of in Canada.

[Claire Dansereau]

Thank you for the question.

I'm not one to use acronyms, but in this case you're talking about PNCIMA. I actually know this process more by its acronym, which is rare for me.

The PNCIMA process is an ongoing one. It's not a decision-making process, but really an information-sharing process, and it will not play a role in deciding whether or not tankers make their way through. There's a regulatory system in place, and those particular questions are strictly in the purview of Transport Canada and its minister.

So I would not be nervous that the PNCIMA process would result in those kinds prescriptive decisions.

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

But we're hearing that Tides Canada is funded, potentially, by U.S. interests.

Will that not influence Canadian decision-makers?

[Claire Dansereau]

My understanding is there's some funding for participation in various meetings. The approval of some of the projects is done by consensus of a broad range of stakeholders. So it's run much more by stakeholders, who include all of our partners and client groups.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Ms. Dansereau, on behalf of the committee, I'd like to say thank you to you and the other officials for appearing here this morning and answering our many wide-ranging questions. Thank you once again.

This meeting stands adjourned.