Fisheries Committee on Dec. 4th, 2012

[David Balfour]

There are discussions that are under way among fish harvester organizations around measures they may or may not want to come together on and propose to the department, in terms of changes to the management of the fishery, to avoid the kinds of situations that occurred last year in terms of poor quality and volumes of landings and so on. That will all come to the department as part of the advisory committee process over the winter period. On the basis of that, the department would then be making recommendations to the minister, as appropriate, for any changes that might occur in terms of any of the conservation requirements for lobster fisheries for next year.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Balfour, but most people involved in the fishery indicate to me that the tags were one of the best conservation measures in the fishery. Is that the evaluation—not the opinion, but the evaluation—of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, that the tags were one of the best, if not the best, conservation methods in fisheries in the lobster industry? Was this change made just to save money?

[David Balfour]

This change, more fundamentally, is about seeing that harvesters who participate in fisheries should be taking on responsibility, and cost responsibility, for those measures for their compliance with conservation stipulations, tags being one of those types of requirements, and that they should be providing that kind of a marking of their gear at their cost. This change is to facilitate doing that.

The department also, as part of moving forward with changes such as with gear tags, has said yes, we recognize the importance of tags in terms of a conservation measure and securing an orderly fishery, and we would be open to considering alternatives to tags if industry wanted to come forward with alternatives that would achieve the same outcomes as are being provided for tags.

When it comes to the lobster fishery, it's pretty clear that the industry is of the view that the tags are the way to continue to proceed.

That is what we're facilitating with the protocol I've described, which we have out, and the arrangements that are now coming forward in terms of the supply of tags to the fishing industry.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Balfour, but it's not your decision; these changes are a government decision. Most people involved in the fishery also understand that it was one of the best conservation methods in the fishery, and they certainly were not consulted and they feel it's a step backward.

What was the total number of jobs lost in the coast guard? Where will the losses be located? What effect do you, as a department, feel this will have on search and rescue times?

[Marc Grégoire]

In the reorganization that we're doing in the coast guard, we're looking at a total of just about 300 jobs. The coast guard has about 4,500 employees. The way we have looked at the reductions we are doing...we have basically looked at the whole coast guard and we have found ways to effect the reductions that would not impact on service to citizens.

I can assure you that the level of service for SAR will be in line with all of the countries on an international basis. There is no reduction. If you're referring to the reduction in the secondary search and rescue centres, or to the MCTS, that will not impact on the search and rescue times.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. MacAulay.

Mr. Donnelly.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, gentlemen, for being here in front of the committee.

Mr. Grégoire, you mentioned that the department is engaged in streamlining services. It was also mentioned that there will be a reduction of just over $80 million over the next three years. In the short time I have, I'd like to focus on two things: one, the Pacific fishery, specifically the wild sockeye salmon; and two, the Canadian Coast Guard, specifically the closure of the Kitsilano coast guard station.

In terms of the Pacific fishery, Justice Cohen recently published his report, along with 75 recommendations, and he was very critical that the government gutted the Fisheries Act before publishing these recommendations. I'm wondering if you have allotted appropriate funding to carry out Justice Cohen's recommendations.

I'll ask my second question, on the Canadian Coast Guard. The department has announced it will be consolidating five MCTS stations in the Pacific region into two centres for the entire coast, and you also intend to close the Kitsilano coast guard station in Vancouver, the third largest city in the country and the busiest port in the country.

Could you tell us how much this closure will cost and how much it will save in terms of operating the station? It's my understanding that the annual operation of the Kits coast guard station is as little as $900,000 per year. You can correct me if this is not the case.

[Trevor Swerdfager]

With respect to the first part of the question, dealing with Cohen, the government—and the department, first and foremost—is in the process of analyzing all of the recommendations. We are working on developing our advice to government with respect to them. Clearly not just the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is implicated. There are implications for many departments.

Part of what will happen is that the advice will go forward; we will offer views on the various recommendations and the possible position of the government on them. The government will make a decision at that point, and associated with that will be some decision on what, if any, funds it may wish to allocate specifically to the implementation of Cohen's recommendations. There is currently nothing earmarked as “Cohen implementation” in the budget of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Work is under way to analyze the recommendations and what the government's response to them might be.

[Marc Grégoire]

On the greater Vancouver area, I have to say, first of all, that our top priority is the safety of mariners in Vancouver, as well as elsewhere in Canada. We wouldn't put on the table any proposal that would affect the safety of mariners. When we develop proposals throughout the coast guard, we look at the level of service offered in every port and every major city in Canada. Obviously we thought we could achieve efficiencies in Vancouver. We have two lifeboat stations located in the port of Vancouver. One is Kitsilano and the other is Sea Island. We felt that by reorganizing the various services in the area, we could be more efficient by reducing the number of stations by one.

We have proposed closing Kitsilano station, and we are now in the process of doing so, but it is not a pure closure.

We have looked at the port of Vancouver and the services it offers and have compared the port with those in all of the other big cities and the services with the kinds of services offered elsewhere. For the busy season, for instance, we have decided to add an in-shore rescue boat that will operate from May or maybe late April to September. We're just finalizing the analysis for that now. We have added money to the contribution that we give to the coast guard auxiliary, also known as the RCMSAR, in B.C. They are moving around some of their stations, providing additional capacity.

There are a lot of vehicles of opportunity in the port of Vancouver.

We have 12 FTEs in total in Kitsilano. Closing it will not incur a lot of cost per se, but we will save about $900,000 per year, and we have already announced that we will provide the RCMSAR with $100,000 per year. The minister announced that in June. We will fund the inshore rescue boat station, which is operated by trained students at minimal cost. The net savings are in the order of $700,000.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Monsieur Grégoire.

I see the minister has joined us at this time. We'll suspend for a couple of moments to give the minister a chance to set up at the table here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I'll call this meeting back to order.

Minister Shea, welcome to the fisheries committee. It's been a while since we've seen you here before this committee. We do appreciate you taking the time this morning to come and meet with members of this committee and to share with us your thoughts on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and supplementary estimates (B).

Minister, I know you have some opening comments, so I'll turn the floor over to you at this point in time. Please proceed whenever you're ready.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. It's been a while since I've been here, but I'm now here as the acting minister. We certainly wish Minister Ashfield all the best and a speedy recovery.

I'm going to talk today about some of the great things our government is achieving for Canadians through Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Before beginning, I want to thank Roch Huppé, who is our chief financial officer for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, for his initial presentation on the supplementary estimates.

I want to extend a special word of welcome as well to two of the new Conservative members on the committee, Stephen Woodworth and John Weston, and other members of the committee I haven't had the chance to speak to before.

Our government remains committed to the long-term sustainability and the prosperity of our fisheries. This commitment is being realized in a number of ways, including investments in science and the Canadian Coast Guard, and focusing resources on protecting fisheries from real threats to their long-term productivity. Our government understands that science is crucial to the sustainability of Canada's fisheries and oceans. The science activities of Fisheries and Oceans involve upwards of 1,500 science staff, working on a variety of relevant topics.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada is mandated to protect Canada's fisheries. Much of our scientific work is related to fisheries management, such as stock assessments, along with conservation. Our scientists also do a lot of work on researching Canada's oceans. With the world's longest coastline, stretching over 243,000 kilometres along three oceans, our oceans support an astonishing diversity and abundance of marine life and human activities.

Canada's three oceans contribute an estimated $28 billion, and over 315,000 jobs, to the Canadian economy. Currently we have established eight marine protected areas under the Oceans Act, and the designation of an additional eight areas is currently in varying stages of completion. Designation of one of these areas is anticipated for 2013. In fact, federal, provincial, and territorial governments have collectively established 810 marine conservation and marine protected areas.

Scientists at DFO also provide science support for fisheries protection provisions and for species at risk. They do work in Canada's Arctic, an important priority for our government and for the country. We have class-leading hydrographers, who are providing charting services to the marine and transport industry. We have an excellent team working on ways to protect Canada's fisheries from aquatic invasive species like Asian carp. In fact, our government recently invested $17.5 million towards the Canadian and American efforts to keep Asian carp from entering our important and valuable Great Lakes system.

This is a small list of examples of the great things our scientists at Fisheries and Oceans are doing for Canadians. Through Canada's economic action plan, our government has invested in facilities across Canada to enhance their operations—facilities, such as, the Institute of Ocean Sciences, the Pacific Biological Station, and the Centre for Aquaculture and Environmental Research, in British Columbia; the Freshwater Institute, in Winnipeg, Manitoba; the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, in Mont-Joli, Quebec; the St. Andrews Biological Station, Mactaquac Biodiversity Facility, and the national aquatic animal health program lab, in New Brunswick; the Bedford Institute of Oceanography, in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia; the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Centre, in Newfoundland; and scientific field camps across the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As ecosystems and Canadians' priorities evolve, so will our investments in science. For the fiscal year 2012-13, departmental spending on science was in excess of $200 million. This level of spending has been consistent since 2006.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada is also proud to be responsible for the Canadian Coast Guard. This year, the Canadian Coast Guard is celebrating 50 years of dedicated service to Canadians. The coast guard plays a key role in supporting the safety of Canadians, promoting uninterrupted shipping to Canadian port gateways, and facilitating trade flows. It delivers search and rescue programs, provides marine pollution responses, and supports science and other government maritime activities. The Canadian Coast Guard is Canada's main maritime presence, especially in the high Arctic.

Most recently, economic action plan 2012 proposed $5.2 billion over the next 11 years on a cash basis to renew the Canadian Coast Guard fleet to make it more adaptable, capable, and more cost-efficient. The procurement of new vessels and helicopters for the Canadian Coast Guard, as well as work related to repairing and refitting existing vessels, will support jobs and generate significant economic benefits.

We also continue to make significant strategic investments in the Canadian Coast Guard. Since 2006 we have invested in new mid-shore patrol vessels, scientific research vessels, new hovercraft, and our first ever polar icebreaker. We have also committed funds for smaller vessels and barges through our budget. By the time all is said and done, the government will have invested more than $6.7 billion in the Canadian Coast Guard. These investments include new vessels and facilities across Canada.

In the Atlantic region, for example, the coast guard has invested more than $30 million for two new near-shore fishery research vessels, the CCGS M. Perley and the CCGS Vladykov. Another $12 million was invested in a mid-life extension and modernization for the coast guard ship Cape Roger, which is used for fishery patrol on the Grand Banks.

Earlier this year the coast guard took formal possession of its new operational centre in Dartmouth. The Atlantic region is served by 42 coast guard vessels, including 11 search and rescue lifeboats and nine helicopters. In Quebec the coast guard has recently invested $4.2 million to upgrade the Marine Communications and Traffic Services Centre at Les Escoumins.

We invest roughly $10 million annually to refit vessels along the St. Lawrence River and estuary, which is in addition to the coast guard's investment of $10 million in extended refit to change the diesel engines of the coast guard ship Pierre Radisson, or $6 million to change the diesel engines on the coast guard ship Amundsen.

Three new patrol vessels have also been built for operation in the area, including a mid-shore patrol vessel, the coast guard ship Caporal Kaeble, a near-shore fishery research vessel, the coast guard ship Leim, and a search and rescue lifeboat, the Cap Aupaluk.

Quebec will continue to be served by 19 coast guard vessels, including seven search and rescue lifeboats, two hovercraft, and six helicopters.

In British Columbia we have announced the addition of three new 47-foot motor lifeboats, vessel life extensions of the Bartlett and the Tanu, and vessel refits of six additional vessels on the west coast. The Canadian Coast Guard western region will continue to be served by 12 lifeboats, two hovercraft, six helicopters, and 15 other vessels.

We will continue to ensure that the coast guard has the tools and training it needs to save lives and keep our waterways open and safe.

One of the important policy measures recently taken by our government is changes to the Fisheries Act that will focus their resources on protecting habitat for fisheries, not protecting habitat for habitat's sake. The Fisheries Act is about managing fisheries.

We're moving away from reviewing all projects on all waters to focusing on the list that may significantly impact Canada's fisheries. We will strengthen our focus on the management of real threats to Canada's recreational, commercial, and aboriginal fisheries to ensure their long-term productivity and sustainability. These threats include habitat destruction, incidental killing of fish, and aquatic invasive species. Concretely, this means moving Fisheries and Oceans away from reviewing every activity that landowners or project proponents may undertake, to focus on activities that may have a significant impact on the sustainability and productivity of Canada's fisheries.

Clear regulations, standards, and guidelines are being established to make sure that Canadians understand what is expected of them when working around water. We will also be able to enter into agreements with third parties, such as conservation groups, to enable them to undertake measures to enhance fisheries protection. This could improve innovative approaches to protect habitat, support for aquatic invasive species outreach and engagement, developing standards for fish protection, and other matters.

In addition, there are a number of provisions that provide and enable enhanced protection. These include establishing ecologically sensitive areas, such as critical spawning habitat for salmon and other species. If any activities are proposed within these areas, proponents would then be required to submit plans for review. We may then require higher levels of protection for such areas.

With respect to enforcement specifically, the recent change to the Fisheries Act creates more enforceable conditions, increases inspector powers to provide them with additional authorities, and establishes a duty to notify provision, which states that every person shall report an occurrence that results in harm to these important fisheries.

The department has been reviewing and adjusting our regulations and policies in order to support the changes to the Fisheries Act. We are actively discussing the regulatory and policy framework that will support these changes with provinces and territories, with first nations, industry, and user groups like conservation organizations. It's important that these discussions take place, especially with technical experts, as we develop the policy and regulations that will support the new act. These discussions are ongoing, and we encourage those who would like to bring forward information to the department to please do so.

It's an understatement to say that there's a lot going on at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. I have just only touched on a few items of importance to our government. We'll continue to work hard for Canadians to ensure there's a bright future for our fisheries and for fishermen across the country.

Now I'll be pleased to take some questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Minister Shea.

We'll start off with Ms. Davidson.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister, welcome. Thank you for joining us this morning.

And thanks also to the officials. We've certainly had an informative morning thus far.

I do have a couple of questions that I will ask. I don't know, Minister, whether you want to answer them or refer them to the officials. I'm interested in vote 1, where we're talking about the transfer of almost a million dollars from Environment Canada. I understand it's for restoration work under the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes water quality agreement. I'm wondering what type of work will be done. Of course, we know that agreement was just amended this year. Is the transfer related to that amendment? I know also that Environment Canada has the lead on this issue. So what are the amendments, and how do they affect DFO?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

I will ask Kevin Stringer to respond to that question.

[Kevin Stringer]

Thanks very much.

Actually, I'll start with the resources and the transfer that is requested here. It's just under a million dollars. It is work that has been ongoing for a long time, and it dates back to a couple of decades ago when areas of concern in the Great Lakes were identified to be, in short form, cleaned up. There were four areas in particular where DFO was asked to provide its expertise and support. There are the Detroit and St. Marys rivers. There's the Bay of Quinte. There's Hamilton Harbour and there's Toronto Harbour.

Work has been under way on that over a number of years. It's work to assess fisheries, to see how we're doing in terms of the objectives that were set in that process and work to see if the habitat is coming back the way we had hoped it would come back with the measures we had taken. So it's habitat work, it's fisheries work, and it's assessment work going forward.

The changes to the agreements—and I do see that I probably have to speed up here—really take us forward very much on a trajectory that we've been on. There are new pieces around aquatic invasive species, which continue to be a significant issue in the Great Lakes, and as the minister said, we just announced funds for Asian carp. There are 180 aquatic invasive species that we know of in the Great Lakes, so there's work around that and specific work around habitat and some other measures going forward, but it does relate to.... It's sort of the next version of an ongoing arrangement with the U.S.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.

Also, I'm not sure what vote number it is, but it's the transfer to Shared Services Canada. Can anybody explain to me how this is a more efficient use of taxpayer money and what actually it entails?

[Marc Grégoire]

I'm looking at the CFO, but actually I can explain.

This is a transfer of money from all of the departments to consolidate in one area, Shared Services Canada, the funds previously used on IM/IT projects in support for the government. The idea is to have one organization to support the whole of government IM/IT infrastructure. That includes telecommunications, telephone services, BlackBerry services, and the network infrastructure. All of those services are provided in a far more efficient manner in one area rather than having it provided separately by all of the departments.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Can I just add to that? The whole point behind Shared Services Canada was to avoid any duplication within government departments. As you know, we've always been accused of operating in silos as government departments, so this is a good first step as a model. We're one government. There is one taxpayer, and we have a responsibility to them to provide services as efficiently as we can.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Minister. That leads into my next question.

We all know we'd like to see our government operate at a lower cost and a higher efficiency, and we also appreciate what you said about DFO promoting the long-term prosperity and sustainability of fisheries. Could you provide some other examples of how these supplementary estimates (B) find efficiencies and eliminate unnecessary spending?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

One of the things I can point to in our supplementary estimates (B) is that we have a decrease of $2.6 million, which is directly linked to such things as the department's fleet of vehicles. Instead of purchasing vehicles, it may be more economical to rent a vehicle if we only need it for short periods of time. It's more economical to purchase vehicles that are more fuel-efficient. We don't all have to be driving around in huge, four-wheel-drive half-tonne trucks because we're Fisheries and Oceans.

The department has done a lot of work to find savings in that area, for example.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

That's great.

This question is probably for the officials, but I notice that we have revenue coming in of $66,851 from polluters or the ship-source oil pollution fund. I understand this is to reimburse DFO or the Canadian Coast Guard for costs incurred. Is the department completely reimbursed for its cost by the polluter, or does the government have to absorb some of those costs?

[Marc Grégoire]

Alfred Popp is the administrator of that fund on behalf of the government, and he examines claims one by one, very carefully. We have arguments with him as to the level of payback we should receive, but he is the one who ultimately decides how much money we will get.

We believe we are receiving a fair share of the costs we have incurred, but it's not always 100%. It is 100% in some cases; in other cases, it is less. In some other cases, we actually get zero. It all depends upon his opinion of whether or not our work was used to prevent pollution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

The bells are ringing. A vote has been called, so we will have to move that this committee meeting be adjourned.

Mr. Chisholm.