Fisheries Committee on March 7th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I'll call this meeting to order. I'd like to thank the officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for joining us again this morning. You probably are aware that we'll be interrupted by some bells very soon. We'll proceed right into questions at this point.

We'll start off with Mr. Weston for a seven-minute round.

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

Merci, monsieur le président, and thank you to our guests for joining us this morning.

I'm especially pleased to have a chance to ask questions because in the province I come from and the riding I represent a high degree of importance is placed on fisheries and the environment. We have a group of community-minded volunteers in my riding who call themselves the Sea to Sky Fisheries Roundtable, who are very well acquainted with fisheries issues. There are about a dozen people, including former fisheries minister John Fraser, as well as Dave Brown, and John Barker who heads up the West Vancouver Streamkeeper Society.

They have participated with me in various fisheries-related things in the four years since I was first elected, among other things, calling for some sort of inquiry into the missing sockeye salmon, encouraging our committee to investigate aquaculture issues, and working with officials in the department to build a wonderful salmon spawning viewing platform in the Squamish area. They are very engaged. They have raised the following three issues. I'm going to ask three questions and hope you have time to deal with them.

First, they have supported measures to increase the portion of salmon stamp revenues that are sold on tidal fishing licences, so those revenues come back into the Pacific region and go toward funding salmon initiatives. It would be good to hear the department's response to that.

Second, changes to Bill C-38 and the effects on fish habitat were raised previously. We've heard there is an active consultation process. This was asked by the parliamentary secretary in the previous meeting. I would like to hear how meetings like the ones our round table had are being incorporated into the process of defining those regulations. How is this process working? How can people track how their participation makes a difference?

Third, the consolidation of DFO offices is being depicted as something that will enhance effectiveness, but there are concerns that it really results in a loss of DFO officers, including in the riding I represent.

I'd love to hear your responses.

[David Balfour, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you very much for the questions.

I'm going to respond to the question concerning the Pacific salmon stamp, and others will speak to the rest of your questions.

For a number of years we've had an arrangement in place through which a portion of the proceeds of the salmon conservation stamp support a contribution that the department provides to the Pacific Salmon Foundation. Proposals have come forward to our minister to consider the possibility of increasing the percentage of the proceeds of the stamp that could contribute to that contribution. That is under consideration, but it's obviously a matter of budget. The revenue that comes from the stamp is contributed to the consolidated revenue fund. That means there would have to be a decision taken at the government level as to whether or not they could reach that arrangement.

[Trevor Swerdfager, Assistant Deputy Minister, Transformation and Program Policy Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

With respect to the other two questions, one on fish habitat and the other regarding our DFO offices, there's an awful lot of information to convey there and I won't speak until 11:19 in responding.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Trevor Swerdfager]

In response to the question with respect to fish habitat, in terms of how consultations, both the ones that you referred to and others, are finding their way into the process, I would describe it as a somewhat organic process. It's very difficult to say that we heard this, this and this in meetings X, Y, and Z and you can directly translate that into legislative text or a policy outcome, and so on. I'm sure you can appreciate that the process is a little more circuitous, so to speak, than that.

The advice and input that we received, both from the round table to which you refer, and a number of others which I believe Mr. Kamp held over the course of the summer last year and early fall, if memory serves, as well as dialogues that we've had, as we described in a list and a chart tabled with this committee in November, have allowed us to think through our policy inputs and our policy development activities fairly carefully. We've had quite a variety of input from around the country, most of which I would say is verbal, so we don't have something that's an extensive document record so that we could say, “Here's what we've heard from all of these people.” We don't have a means of cataloguing and playing that back to individuals. We have had quite a variety of inputs, not only from the round table process to which you refer, but also from conservation organizations, and from industry groups. We've had a little from universities. As I say, most of the dialogue has been fairly informal in nature, in the sense that it hasn't taken place in large formalized workshops, but much more in a bilateral conversation sense.

We are taking all of that, distilling it, and using it to bring forward over the course of the next four or five months a series of policy documents, which we will ask people for their views on. We have a set of questions that we're planning to use in that regard.

As I mentioned here on Tuesday, or across the hall I should say, work is under way to develop a regulation that will set out the information requirements we will have of project proponents and to set timelines by which the department will have to make decisions with respect to those proposals. That regulatory process will follow the “normal” one, insofar as consultations are concerned. In terms of when the regulation actually gets released, that's a determination of the government. Most of the preparatory work on that is now complete and it will be a matter of the government's regulatory agenda and timing.

I'd suggest that summarizes where we are with respect to the consultation element.

With respect to the consolidation of DFO offices, I'd say two things first. Most importantly, although we talk about the consolidation of offices, what we probably should be more focused on using is consolidation of the program previously referred to as the habitat program, the fisheries protection program now. We are moving people from 68 offices down to approximately 15. That doesn't mean the offices in which they're located necessarily close. Most of our offices have staff from the small craft harbours program, the habitat program, fish management, etc., fisheries officers and so on. Many of the physical offices, if you will, that we're speaking about will remain open. The people who previously worked in the habitat program will be consolidated from approximately 68 locations to 15.

We're quite confident that in so doing the program will become far more efficient. Decision-making, controls, and procedures will become tighter and more focused. Our ability to consolidate experts alongside each other rather than in a highly distributed network will substantially increase. Our ability to make sure that the department's resources are focused on key priorities, key issues, key habitat concerns, will substantially go up.

We will have a smaller physical footprint from the point view of the habitat program, but in this day and age the requirement to be physically on site is dramatically less than what it once was, and we do think we'll be at a point where we'll consolidate the focus.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chisholm.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to the officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans who are here.

I want to begin by making the point that I made on Tuesday when the minister was here. We have a great deal of concern with the fact that the main estimates and the supplementary estimates are before us before we've seen the plans and priorities report from the department. We think that's putting the cart before the horse. We would certainly expect that once those plans are tabled we would then have an opportunity to further complete our analysis of these documents and hopefully invite you back in order to finish that up before we're asked to vote on the main estimates. I wanted to make that point again.

In terms of the habitat program, let me ask you this. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, in his fall report, raised concerns over the department's understanding of some of the changes to the Fisheries Act that we've talked about on many occasions. I quote from the report:

Department officials told us that DFO has not yet fully determined the impact of these amendments coming into force or the impact of the policy changes.

In particular the question of HADDs was raised, and whether this policy would remain in place after the changes to the Fisheries Act. That kind of gets to what you were just referring to.

Could you respond, please, to what the commissioner had to say, given your understanding of the impact of the changes resulting from these amendments?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

There are a couple of things, I guess.

Regarding the specific reference you made to HADDs, I would emphasize that the act will still require authorizations. Authorizations is another way to put it. They will no longer be called HADDs. We will for sure come up with another acronym, because we're very good at that. It will be something that will constitute a serious harm authorization of some kind, because that's the term in the new prohibition. At some point authorizations will come forward to say that we've determined that project X, Y, Z may proceed with the following conditions and so on. That would be the nature of the authorization.

Insofar as whether or not authorizations of the nature people are familiar with in the HADD context will continue, the answer is yes. The terminology will vary a little bit. The manner in which they're put forward will vary a little bit. Importantly, a significant difference with respect specifically again to the authorizations is that the conditions attached to those authorizations will now be much more enforceable. Whereas before a fisheries officer would have been required to identify a violation, and if the violation or a charge proceeded through the court process, would have been required to demonstrate that the activity in question caused harm to habitat, we will no longer be required to do that. Essentially we will now be required to demonstrate that the condition on the authorization was violated, and that will be the end of the discussion. They're enforceable conditions which will substantially, in our view at least, improve our ability to enforce the terms of the act and specifically the authorizations.

Now to go back to your broader question about whether we have fully interpreted the impact of every section of the act and so on, of course the process has only recently been completed in terms of the legislative history. I think that no bureaucrat would sit before a committee of this nature and say, “Don't worry. We've figured out every single element of it”. I don't think we have that level of hubris. I think we're certainly at a point where we've worked through to the best of our understanding the implications of the change. We are proceeding to organize ourselves in such a way to deliver upon the new program. We have an awful lot of work to do in terms of policy design, and it ranges from the picayune, very detailed questions about how you define certain things—we have to put new forms in place for applications and that kind of stuff—through to broader questions about how we'll action some of the new provisions with respect to partnerships, with respect to offsets, and a whole variety of things.

I wouldn't want you to draw the conclusion that we have no idea where we're going. I think we have our act together reasonably well in terms of our next few steps, but I think the community collectively is still going to have a lot of work to do.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you. I appreciate your candour, your frankness. Nobody would expect, I don't think, with these kinds of significant changes, that you would be able to make that kind of commitment.

In terms of hubris, we see all kinds of that already coming from government members, not necessarily on this committee, but there have been times, in terms of what these changes will and won't do, so I think you're okay in saying that you don't need to bring any with you.

The whole question of the precautionary principle is something that was raised quite a bit in Commissioner Cohen's report, particularly the responsibility of the department to be able to protect fish habitat. I know that now it's not about protecting habitat, that it's about protecting fish.

I'm going to ask you two things.

The first thing is that the funding for the sustainable aquaculture program is down $17 million. I want to ask you why.

The second thing is on the ability of the department, in the case for example of finfish aquaculture, to protect wild stocks, whether they be salmon, crustaceans, mackerel, herring or whatever.

Would you comment, please, on the ability of the department, as a result of the changes, both in terms of resources and in terms of legislation, to ensure that our wild stocks of salmon, crustaceans, herring, mackerel, and so on are in fact going to be protected by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

Before I respond, may I just make sure I understood the first part of your question? I had a little problem hearing you.

You asked a question about the sustainable aquaculture program and the $17 million, and then I didn't catch the specific question on that.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I just noted that the funding for that program is down $17 million, and I wanted to know why. I wanted to link it with your ability to protect the traditional stocks, and whether or not they're tied, or maybe you could....

That's why I presented them together.

[Trevor Swerdfager]

Okay.

With respect to the question specifically on that component of it, as my colleague, our chief financial officer, explained here on Tuesday, we have a number of sunsetting programs. The sustainable aquaculture program is one of them.

If the government chooses not to renew it, it will drop by the amount that you've suggested, and that will have an impact on our programs. We will be in a position where we will have to figure out alternate ways of delivering some of what we do under that program, and obviously some of it will cease. The government will choose shortly what programs it will fund and those it won't.

With respect to the resources available to us now and what we reasonably foresee to continue, I'd echo some of the comments I made just a minute ago. I'd be very surprised if any government official came before you and said, “Don't worry. We've got enough money. Please don't send us any more”—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I have to interrupt you.

As per the Standing Orders, when the bells start to ring, it is our obligation to suspend our hearing.

I believe there's unanimous consent to continue for 15 more minutes. Is that correct?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

With that unanimous consent, we'll continue for 15 more minutes. Then members will have to return to the House.

Mr. Chisholm, you're well over your time on this question. I have you at eight and a half minutes.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Really? I have six and a half minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

You'd better check your clock.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

We'll move on to Mr. Kamp.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for being here.

I have three areas that I want to cover briefly.

Let me begin with what is, I think, the easiest one first. Can you give us an update on the progress we're making on our polar icebreaker?

[Michel Vermette, Deputy Commissioner, Vessel Procurement, Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thanks for the question, Mr. Kamp.

We're making significant progress on the polar icebreaker. As you know, Vancouver Shipyards has been awarded the non-combat package of the national shipbuilding procurement strategy. We recently signed a contract with Vancouver Shipyards to move ahead the design of the polar icebreaker.

Last year we awarded a contract to STX Canada Marine from Vancouver to do the design of our polar icebreaker. Last fall we tested a hull form in the tank at the National Research Council in St. John's, Newfoundland. We spent three months working in the ice tank there testing various hull forms and propulsion configurations.

We're getting some very exciting results. Having the input of some world-class design firms and of the shipyard in Vancouver into the design and constructability of the polar icebreaker, we're very much on track with the project to deliver that ship.

It's a fantastic opportunity for us, and a huge asset for Canada as our flagship.

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

Good. Thank you very much for that.

When the commissioner was here, we heard some of the background for the realignment of the search and rescue resources in the port of Vancouver; specifically that the coast guard has reviewed all of its programs, particularly how you have delivered search and rescue resources across Canada, and has decided there would be a more efficient but as effective network in Vancouver without Kitsilano but with the addition of some other resources.

I've always felt that the right question is whether we are confident that the new network is going to work. Are the assumptions on which the decision was based right? Now that we've had a few weeks with the new network in place, although we don't have the inshore rescue boat yet, can you tell us your view on it?

There have been some incidents, we understand. Can you tell us how they were handled and whether you feel that the new network is working?

[Jody Thomas, Deputy Commissioner, Operations, Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you, Mr. Kamp.

When discussing search and rescue, it is critical to understand that there is no one asset, no one element of the program that ensures a safe rescue. We are very confident in the decision that has been made, and that the system, and SAR is a system of systems, that is in place is effective.

There have been a few incidents over the last few days, the largest one occurring yesterday with the rescue of two people out of the water. The system worked exactly as it should. A mayday call was relayed to our marine communications centre in Victoria. It took the information that it should, in the way it always does—professionally, calmly—and assured the two individuals in the fishing vessel that we would have assets on the scene shortly. They called the JRCC, and they did exactly what they should do. They analyzed the situation, looked at the assets that were available, tasked two vessels of opportunity, tasked RCMSAR, the auxiliary, and tasked the hovercraft in Sea Island.

The hovercraft was under way in five minutes. This was at 5:15 in the morning. They got up, got dressed and were gone, exactly as we expect them to do. They were on scene before the tug that was in the area was able to deploy its life raft. They rescued the two individuals, got them on board, and transported them directly from the hovercraft ashore to the ambulance.

The system works exactly as we expect it to. We are very proud of the rescue that was effected yesterday in Vancouver, and we're proud of the work that the coast guard crews are doing in the Vancouver area.

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

Thank you for that. I appreciate the confidence that we can look forward to that system's effective delivery of those services.

Let me ask a question on a different topic as the final question. This question was raised in the House a few days ago, and I'm not sure that in 35 seconds we got an answer.

My understanding is that this is the year in which we need to make our submission, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, on the continental shelf. I know that we have been doing a lot of work on this, and I think we will see resources in the main estimates that have been used for it.

Are we still on track to deliver? Can you share any more about that process?

Once we do submit it, how long will it be before it is dealt with?