Fisheries Committee on March 5th, 2013

[Marc Grégoire]

Actually it was the spring. It was 20° in Vancouver when we actually closed it, but we never specified a date because we always repeated that we would close it when we felt that it was operationally safe and sound to do so. We ran exercises. We obtained a statement of readiness from the RCMSAR in February. We announced the selection of the IRB, inshore rescue boat, location in January, and then we held exercises. The last one was held on Monday, February 18. Immediately after that exercise, we did a washout with all the participants, and it was felt that we could close any time after that.

The land is owned by the province.

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

Thank you.

I have very little time before I pass it on to my colleague. I have just one quick last question. When could we expect the MCTS centres in Comox, Tofino, and Vancouver to be closed, and will you notify key partners in advance of those closures?

[Marc Grégoire]

We actually announced the closing dates for those stations last May, and all of those stations, as with every other station to be closed in Canada, will be closed in the spring of 2014 and in the spring of 2015.

I believe Tofino is first with consolidation of its services into Prince Rupert, and the last in the country to be closed will actually be Vancouver, and we will consolidate the services in Victoria.

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

Thank you. I'll just turn it over to my colleague for two minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Tremblay, you have the floor.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Will you follow the recommendations of the commissioner of official languages asking to postpone closing the search and rescue centre in Quebec City until recommendations 1 to 4 have been implemented?

[Marc Grégoire]

First of all, we must thank the commissioner of official languages. We take each one of his recommendations very seriously. It is clear to me, especially as a francophone, that search and rescue services must be offered in the language of the people who need to be saved.

My answer will be sort of along the same lines as what I told your colleague. We are not going to transfer the services of the marine rescue sub-centre in Quebec to Halifax or Trenton until we—in this case, me—are convinced that services will be provided in both official languages and that no call will go unanswered.

However, I can tell you today that we are almost ready to do the transfer of the eastern portion of the search and rescue centre, in other words, the portion to the east of 70^o longitude west, which is very close to Cap à l'Aigle in the Murray Bay region. The portion to the east of that boundary will be transferred to Halifax, while the area to the west will receive services from Trenton.

The eastern portion will be transferred in the spring, once we are ready. There again, we do not have a specific date right now. The western portion won't be transferred until the fall.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

You have 30 seconds.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Pardon? How much time to I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

You have 30 seconds.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Okay.

We were talking about four recommendations involving the linguistic requirements of the coordinators. We want all positions to be designated bilingual, that there be enough of them, that the coordinators meet the requirements and that there be an environment conducive to learning both languages.

Are you going to postpone the move until that has been implemented?

[Marc Grégoire]

We already have bilingual positions in place and we already have a satisfactory work environment at the central search and rescue centre in Halifax. However, we are not yet ready for that in Trenton. It will take us a little longer.

In fact, we are carefully trying to implement the commissioner's recommendations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Monsieur Tremblay.

Ms. Davidson.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And welcome, Mr. King, and the rest of your colleagues. We appreciate your being with us this morning as we try to wade through these supplementary and main estimates.

My first question is going to be on the supplementary estimates (C), and it's the third item in the department's voted appropriations. It outlines the close to $1.5 million that was spent on implementing the Asian carp initiative to protect the Great Lakes. As you know from appearing before us previously, we have an ongoing study on that at the moment.

I wonder if you could talk a bit about that initiative the government has in place: how much funding is in the total envelope, what the objectives are, and what has been accomplished so far with that $1.5 million.

[Kevin Stringer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Oceans Science Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

The Asian carp initiative, as you point out, that was announced in the budget last year was for $17.5 million over five years, and as you point out, with $1.5 million to get the project started this year.

The overall objective is to address Asian carp. Prevention is number one: preventing Asian carp from getting into and establishing themselves in the Great Lakes area. There's a $17-billion recreational and commercial fishery in the Great Lakes, and there are other issues to be concerned about as well. So prevention, outreach, research is one of the four pillars with respect to the Asian carp program.

The second piece is early warning, including both traditional and genetic, or warning systems in key areas. We look at the Welland Canal, we look in other key areas where Asian carp may be able to get into the Great Lakes system. But there is also something called eDNA, which is a new genetic type of research that we're doing.

The third area is response, including internal preparedness in collaboration with Ontario and the U.S. We're working very closely with the Ontario government and the U.S. government on responding if the carp are able to get into the Great Lakes system, that is, being able to fish them out and being able to take other appropriate actions to address them, including identifying the areas where they're likely to be, where the habitats are, where they're going to be the most comfortable and most likely to establish themselves. That's the third area.

The fourth is management, meaning collaborative border work with Canadian Border Services and our U.S. colleagues in identifying these as they come across the border.

Those are the objectives.

This year, as you point out, there is $1.5 million spent. We really have two foci this year. One is to put in place the facilities and equipment to deliver the full field program starting this coming summer, and the second is conducting some research, such the study we did on the Welland Canal, including how the fish move through that canal. We did some tagging and checking to see what happens, and we have some receivers in the Welland Canal as well.

We also, as I say, purchased some of the facilities and equipment, including remodelling two existing labs in our Burlington facility. We have a trailer that is built for Asian carp, which can move around the Great Lakes, and other equipment so that we're ready to get going full time in 2013.

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

Thank you very much.

My next question is going to be the sixth line in the department's voted appropriations in the supplementary estimates (C). It's talking about the reinvestment of revenue received from polluters. I know that we've heard a lot of misinformation and fearmongering in the discussion on how oil spills are managed in Canada, so I think that we need to be aware of what is happening. It's my understanding that the polluter pay principle is the standard, so could somebody confirm whether or not I'm correct on that?

And I see in the sixth line that the coast guard has been reimbursed for the costs they incurred when addressing a pollution incident. Could you explain how the ship-source oil pollution fund does work?

[Marc Grégoire]

Yes, certainly.

First of all, you are quite correct in saying that it's user-pay in the oil spill area; however, we're not always able to get the money readily from the user, or sometimes the oil pollution is from an unknown source. In either case, if the polluter refuses to pay us or if we don't know the source, we have access to the source oil pollution fund, which is administered here in Canada on behalf of Transport Canada.

We collect up our costs and we simply send the bill to that organization. They go through our bills with due diligence. They determine which portion of each of our bills should be reimbursed. Every once in a while they accept to pay us a certain amount of money. That is the total for the supplementary (C)s. More than once a year, many times a year, we do actually come here. The only way to access this money from the source oil pollution fund is through a transfer by the supplementary or main estimates.

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

Thank you.

In number 11 in the supplementaries, you're talking about the small craft harbours. Could you tell me a little bit about that program and what the annual budget and the main objectives are? This talks about a transfer. Where was that money transferred to?

[David Bevan, Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

The small craft harbours program is an infrastructure program designed to support the commercial fishing industry in Canada. It has a budget that has been varying quite a bit, depending on circumstances, but the base is approximately $100 million. That is spent to support harbour authorities throughout the country in the maintenance of the facilities.

By and large, we are not building the new harbours, with the exception of the harbour in Pangnirtung in Nunavut. The budget is now spent either to maintain commercial harbours or to get ready for divestment harbours that are no longer core.

The budget varies. During the economic action plan, it almost doubled. We also have periodic increases in the budget if there's storm damage or an event of that nature. The bulk of the money is spent on Gs and Cs for transfer to support contracts that are needed to do the work on the facilities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Ms. Davidson.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Mr. King. Congratulations on your new position.

My first point is just a bit of follow-up on Kitsilano. Whatever takes place in the government, it's not the departmental officials who make the decision. Am I understanding this correctly, that you're giving.... It's the government that decides what takes place. Now, you might give suggestions, but there's a dollar figure given to you, and that's what you have to operate under. Am I understanding correctly?

[Matthew King]

I can start off, Mr. MacAulay, and I'm sure the commissioner, who has a deeper history in this than I, will weigh in.

In this case, the coast guard was in the process of looking at a whole stream of activities to effectively make their operations more efficient. The recommendation to close Kitsilano was a recommendation that was put to the government by the coast guard. This was done in the context of a broader expenditure review exercise. It happened to be a recommendation that was accepted.

Marc, you have more, if you want to add the colour commentary.

[Marc Grégoire]

No, actually, I couldn't have said it better.

[Matthew King]

So it originated in the coast guard and was accepted by the government. Yes.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much. What you're telling me is that it's efficiency.

It's like how we have some difficulties in the Atlantic area under owner-operator and fleet separation policy. Now, I suspect and I understand, and you can agree or disagree, that there have been suggestions from the department, which would be the suggestion that you gave the government on Kitsilano and other cases, which is that a lot fewer boats could fish the lobsters more efficiently in the Atlantic region, not understanding that there are 32,000 people in this area making a living on this area. I haven't seen the paper, but I understand that the suggestion has been made quite often.

But in the end, it's the decision of the Government of Canada as to whether these decisions are made or not. Am I correct?