Fisheries Committee on March 24th, 2010

[Claire Dansereau]

To date, some of our fisheries have already been certified. I cannot recall the exact number.

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

The shrimp fishery, for instance.

[Claire Dansereau]

Indeed, and the work is already under way. This work is often paid for by the industry and fishermen's organizations which want to continue to be able to sell their product. It therefore depends on the information that is needed, what needs to be done and future direction. The long-term lobster program is based on long-term conservation needs for certification. It will depend, because each case is different. We will need broad participation from the industry in every case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Donnelly.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think I'll ask three questions and then see how much time there is to respond.

In terms of science, I'm wondering if the department can explain the new relationship with science and science-based decision-making. I understand that Wendy Watson-Wright has left the department. Are there plans to cut this position or fill this position? Do you know who the replacement is, if it's the latter? So that's the first question.

The second question is just on the Cohen inquiry, if there can be some explanation about how this is being funded and if there's a comment about funding for next year as well.

Finally, in terms of west coast salmon, many west coast fishers and their families, first nations, recreationalists, and other interests are quite worried about their livelihood and the future of the industry. We've talked here at committee today about the 2009 Fraser River sockeye collapse. But we're also hearing reports that DFO is warning that there may be a no-fish season this summer on the Skeena system. I'm wondering if you could provide any comment on the steps being taken to address that situation.

[Claire Dansereau]

Sure. Let me assure you absolutely, unequivocally, that Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright has been replaced. Her departure was one that I think we all supported and we're all very proud of her, because she competed among many people internationally for the director general position for the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and won the competition internationally. So we're very proud of her, and she stays in close contact with us, obviously.

If I may take a second also, a previous question was on the relationship of oceans and science and what our commitment is. We have a very strong commitment to the oceans agenda. In fact after Wendy left we took advantage of that moment to combine the oceans sector and the science sector into one, because the people we rely on the most to address the big oceans questions are in fact our scientists. So we now have Dr. Siddika Mithani, who is the head of our oceans and science sector. She started about a month ago. We started the process, had a competition, and she won the competition. She is a well-respected scientist in her own right, so there's no lack of commitment or lesser commitment there. In fact it's a greater commitment. A commitment doesn't always have to be measured with increasing dollars. It can be increasing intent and organization, and that's what we have in this case.

Regarding the Cohen inquiry and the funding, the management of the Cohen inquiry itself and its funds is not.... We have no relationship with it, so that question would have to be asked elsewhere. There is a possibility that we will receive some money to organize ourselves for document production. We assume that there will be an awful lot of documents that will have to be produced for this inquiry. We will be doing everything we can to provide them with as much information as we can possibly give them.

We truly believe it's an opportunity for us to get to the heart of some of the questions. So there's complete support on the whole of the department, starting with the minister right through for this inquiry. So we're organizing ourselves. We have a team of people focusing on it in British Columbia under Paul's guidance. We have a team focusing on it in Ottawa as well. Really, we're there to do whatever we can to provide support.

On west coast salmon, Paul can give you more details on the Skeena and how it's unfolding. I don't think the decisions or the decision points are with us at this point, but I'll let Paul answer the specifics.

[Paul Sprout, Regional Director General, Pacific Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

We haven't made any final fishing plan decisions. We're actually in the draft stage right now. We've got a draft plan out for the Skeena and for all our salmon fisheries. That's under discussion with fishermen: recreational, first nations, and commercial. That will be completed probably in the latter part of spring. Then we'll bring that together to ultimately seek the minister's approval on whatever those final plans are.

But you're right, the Skeena prediction for 2010 is poor. If the prediction comes back as expected, we would expect little fisheries in the Skeena, so we'll have to see how reliable that prediction is.

More broadly, the salmon in the Pacific is mixed. As commented earlier on by the minister in her remarks, pink salmon and chum salmon are doing relatively well--there are some exceptions. But when we move into coho and chinook, the picture is a bit less certain. Then finally when we're dealing with Fraser sockeye or sockeye populations in general, for the last several years we've seen returns that are coming back less than expected. In the case of the Fraser River sockeye, it's substantially less than expected. It's our view that this is a reflection of marine survival conditions that we think have been adverse, particularly for more southerly salmon populations. We expect those conditions are going to persist at least into 2010.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Weston.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My colleagues and I want to thank you for being here with us today.

As a first-term MP, I come here with the usual misgivings about what can really happen, especially in a very difficult area with a constellation of factors over which we have sometimes no control.

It's been a year in which there's been real responsiveness from your ministry. Around the country we've seen habitat matters looked at and tended to. It was just mentioned that the hovercraft has finally been funded and it's something that's been worked on by your department. This Cohen inquiry is something that many voices called for. I did, on behalf of people in our constituency. People around this table I'm sure wanted that as well. Aquaculture is very controversial and something that everybody wants some resolution for on the west coast, for sure. On small craft harbours, you've been very busy on expanding and enhancing small craft harbours. We've seen visits by you and your minister all over the country. I just want to say a thank you on behalf of Canadians, because it's clear that you're working very hard in a difficult environment.

Since you're at the table, is it Dr. Sprout?

[Paul Sprout]

Mr. Sprout.

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

Mr. Sprout, thank you for being here--not yet Dr. Sprout.

Given that we do have this Cohen inquiry coming, and given that aquaculture is going to pass to federal jurisdiction in December, we heard from Mr. Trevor Swerdfager last week that you're adding 55 new people. You are clearly anticipating an active approach to the aquaculture issue. It's probably the most controversial issue among fisheries issues in my riding and maybe on the west coast. I'm wondering if you can elaborate on that, on what the plans are. How can we get to a place where the community seems more unified in dealing with something that's been very divisive in the months and years leading up to this date?

[Paul Sprout]

First of all, I should just clarify that we will be receiving incremental resources, but we have not yet agreed on how to distribute those among our various functions: enforcement, fisheries management, science. That's being internally reviewed right now. We'll go through a process within the department. Ultimately it will be approved by the deputy. Those resources will go against our new responsibilities.

You're right that we are going to assume responsibilities that were previously done by the province. Part of the going forward is our clarifying those responsibilities with the province itself and then internally reconciling that extra level of responsibility with new resources and new approaches.

On your question of how to tackle the challenges in the Pacific region with respect to aquaculture, there are certain things we can do that I believe will be helpful. One of those is bringing more transparency to our aquaculture approach by improving compliance with our arrangements and improved monitoring. All of these things are consistent themes that are emerging in public discussions. In fact, when we eventually decide on our organizational structure, we expect to put effort into those areas that we think publicly we're hearing about, in a consistent way.

The other thing is that we will continue to do science around the issues of sea lice, around the issues of disease, and around other factors that various individuals are bringing to our attention. We see that we have more work to do in this area, and we will do that with the resources we're going to receive and with our existing program.

We will also reach out to various community groups. We already are doing this, but we'll also interact with groups that are raising these kinds of concerns to hear them, to consider their views, and to the extent possible to factor them into our decision-making.

We're mindful that this is a tough issue. This is not a straightforward issue. This is a complex issue and it's not something we're going to resolve overnight, but we believe that with the approach I've just outlined, it holds promise to move this thing forward.

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

We heard from Mr. Swerdfager that closed catchment facilities had been proposed and had been reviewed, but there hasn't been one example of a technically or financially successful closed catchment facility anywhere in the world. I wonder if you'd like to comment on that statement.

[Paul Sprout]

There is a very strong interest by some groups to move to closed containment. We have done a science review of that and have determined that economically there is no functioning, valid, commercial-level containment anywhere, that we're aware of. Additionally, there's a significant energy input in operating a closed containment facility. Finally, there are some significant technical issues around the implications of how to put one of these in place.

Notwithstanding that, we are doing experimentation with the province and with the industry looking at a potential containment that might be applicable in the longer run, but we're mindful that at this point in time there is no commercially available product or economically sound system that we're aware of so far.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Byrne.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to raise a point of order, if I could. I didn't have an opportunity to ask our witnesses when they would be able to provide the committee with information as to whether the department will agree to my request for release of information regarding licence-holders.

[Claire Dansereau]

The first answer, as to whether we will be able to provide it, we can give you in the next couple of weeks. If in fact we are able to provide all the information you require, that will take a little bit longer.

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

That will be based on an assessment that you'll do of the Privacy Act, I assume.

[Claire Dansereau]

Yes.

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

So you will endeavour to reply to the clerk within approximately 14 calendar days.

[Claire Dansereau]

Yes.

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

The second thing is that Mr. Dhaliwal asked a question about monitoring and assessment of the sockeye resource and I believe the question was cut off because of time constraints. Would you be able to provide the committee with a written reply to that particular question?

[Claire Dansereau]

Certainly.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I have one question, Mr. Sprout. Would it be possible to ask whether the science review for a closed containment could be made available to the committee as well? That's the analysis you talked about--the science review on closed containment.