Fisheries Committee on March 24th, 2010

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

The number of seals that are present now is three times what it was in the 1970s. The population has grown tremendously. The herd is quite healthy. It's certainly not anywhere near extinction.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much. Minister, I know you have to leave at this point. I want to take this opportunity to say thank you on behalf of the entire committee. We really appreciate your time spent with us here this afternoon. As always, it has been very informative and very enlightening.

We'll take a short break while the minister leaves and we'll resume very quickly. I believe the staff will stay behind. We'll have another round of questioning with the staff, if that's permissible. I see Ms. Dansereau nodding her head.

Could l ask all members to please take their seats so we can begin?

Mr. Kamp, I believe you wanted to make a comment.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Yes. I was just wondering whether it would be okay with the committee to invite to the table Paul Sprout, the regional director general for the Pacific region, who happens to be with us. I know there is certainly some interest in Pacific issues in this round. So with the consent of committee...

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

All members are in agreement.

Mr. Sprout, we welcome you to our table.

We're going to begin with a five-minute round. We'll start with Mr. Byrne and Ms. Sgro, who are going to share.

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

She will go first, and we'll share our time.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'm filling in today for one of the other members. I have a brief question, and then I'll turn it back over to my colleague.

This summer I was in Newfoundland, and I visited some of the fishermen there. Actually, I had a wonderful time visiting a very beautiful part of our country. But in talking to many of the fishermen there, I heard that their biggest problem was that they can't get their boats into the water. The slips have deteriorated and so on, and they have been looking for assistance for some time now from the Government of Canada to help with that. It really was quite sad. Clearly, as the banks had risen, there was no way they could get their boats into the water so they could go out and do the fishing they wanted to do and that we want them to do. They weren't getting any help rebuilding those slips along the coast. I'm looking at the budget here that is talking about small craft harbours and I guess the disposal of them. Does that mean that you're going to get rid of more of them, or are you going to be helping to establish more?

[Claire Dansereau]

No, the small craft harbour divestiture was an agreement reached a number of years ago to divest those small craft harbours that are not core fishing harbours. There are a number of harbours the department was responsible for--recreational harbours or other such harbours--and they are being divested, after some refits, to the communities, which will then manage them. The core fishing harbours remain the responsibility of the department.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

So if they can't get their boats into the water, they're not going to be able to fish and they'll have to go to another location.

[Claire Dansereau]

I'm not sure.

Michaela, can you speak on the slips question?

[Michaela Huard, Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources and Corporate Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

It depends very much... I don't know the specific location you're referring to. We definitely do have—

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

There are several.

[Michaela Huard]

Yes, we definitely have over 745 core fishing harbours. There are still another 140-odd that we have to divest. As the minister mentioned previously, we do have an additional $200 million over two years for the small craft harbours program, so we are making great advances with respect to the repairs and maintenance of our harbours. But there may still be cases where either we don't have sufficient money or perhaps—I'd have to know the specifics—they may not be core harbours, as the deputy mentioned.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to follow up on a question I asked the minister. She indicated she's firmly convinced the fishery is a public resource. Can we get access to information about those exclusive individuals who have exclusive access to this public resource? Why is there a question as to whether or not there's a confidentiality requirement?

[Claire Dansereau]

I think we've looked at this before. Certain elements of the licensing factors are private information, but we have committed to looking at the question for the committee.

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

I won't ask you for the full list of every individual licence-holder in Canada, but I'd like to have a list of licence-holders that are not-for-profit organizations or not-for-profit companies, unions, associations, or licence-holders that may consist of groups of enterprises or businesses that have formed some sort of cooperative or other form of association in mutual cooperation with each other.

Would you be able to provide the name of the licence-holder or the name of the group that represents the licence-holder, the area they're entitled to fish, and the quota that has been assigned to them?

That does not break any commercial confidentiality, since it's a public resource. I'm not asking how much money they made from it. I'm not asking for their mailing address. All I want is the name of the organization, the area they fish, and the amount they're entitled to fish. It's directed more at those involved in the not-for-profit sector, associations, and unions. I'll ask you to get back to us on that.

Life is tough enough in the fishery these days. I really don't understand why the one tool that fishermen have to reduce their costs and still stay afloat is the buddying-up system. Under this provision, two or three or even four core licence-holders can join forces and fish their respective quotas using one boat, burning less fuel.

The department has decided to seriously curtail that option. The buddying-up system doesn't force one extra pound of fish out of the water. There is absolutely no way to calculate this as a conservation concern. Just think of it as carpooling. Why are we limiting the option of the buddying-up system? Why are we going ahead with this?

[Claire Dansereau]

I'll let David answer some of the specifics of it. Much in the buddying-up system is still ongoing. We certainly continue to support parts of it. There are reasons, through various consultations, why we would change our policies, but I'm not sure what the specifics are of what you're talking about.

[David Bevan]

You'll recall some announcements that were made as long ago as 2007 regarding moving ahead with ocean to plate and trying to look at how to build value and enterprises in Atlantic Canada. At that time, there was a change in policy and a change in the vessel replacement rules for the larger enterprises—the 65-footers—where we said that buddying up was going to stop.

However, what is allowed is combining enterprises and collapsing those enterprises into one. At that point they're allowed to combine certain quotas, and, should they desire, go to a larger vessel that is more seaworthy, more economical to run, and provides a larger platform for better quality and better comfort.

The intention of removing buddying up in that case was to provide the motivation to move ahead with these combinations and make a permanent arrangement to reduce costs instead of having the temporaries where, if things are going badly, you buddy up and then, as soon as you get a turnaround, you end up with the watering down of the benefits by having more people go back into the fishery.

This is counterproductive in the long haul because we're not dealing with a stable state. We're dealing with stocks that go up and down. We need to be able to have enterprises that can adjust to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Blais.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The most recent budget refers to the creation, if memory serves me correctly, of a federal eco-certification office. If memory serves, $7 million have been earmarked for this office.

The market is asking for, in fact requiring, eco-certification. I feel that companies will need more than a federal eco-certification office. They will eventually need support to deal with the situation. They are already somewhat stuck, financially, in dealing with the situation. I am thinking of the lobster fishers, specifically, but I could mention others as well. Eco-certification is not something that will be covered by the markets themselves, on the contrary. There will be a cost to fishing companies and to the industry in general.

I am wondering how the department views this issue, and I hope that the department's vision involves more than simply a federal eco-certification office.

[Claire Dansereau]

We are starting with a certification office. That was the first absolute necessity in order to have European markets remain open to us. If we had been unable to provide our fishers and processors with certification, European markets would have been closed to us as of January 1, 2010.

So, the office was open in December so that we could at least get the first step underway. This year's budget allocated longer-term funding to ensure the first step in certification would be taken and that our products would continue to be sold in Europe.

We know full well that eco-certification and traceability are major issues and that we will have to work on them with the industry to develop systems. It depends on the system used to certify products. Certification will be somewhat different from eco-certification, as described by the MSC or others.

It was a start and it was absolutely necessary for us to be able to sell our products in Europe at this point.

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

In what way are certification and eco-certification different?

[Claire Dansereau]

Certification is to attest to the fact that it is legal fishing and that it is well organized.

Eco-certification in a broader sense is aimed at the markets. The company known under its English acronym MSC does this type of work. It is a system that values the way in which the department works and the tools used to do the work. So, it is much broader than certification indicating that the fishing is legal and well organized.

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

In what way will we manage the inherent costs of these market needs, needs that are being expressed and standards that are becoming demanding in this respect?

It may lead to enormous costs. This may be just the tip of the iceberg and it may be difficult to find our way in this respect.

What companies could eventually provide this eco-certification or prove that products are market worthy? It is a world unto itself, but at the same time, there are inherent costs for companies. I would like you to give us further details on the cost that will be borne by the companies.