Fisheries Committee on March 7th, 2013

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

Thank you for the question.

Indeed this is the year that we'll be making our submission. The matter is indeed in the main estimates; there are some resources in this fiscal year and some resources for the next few years. I'll explain that as well.

It has taken 10 years' work to prepare Canada's submission. Basically it's about identifying the footprint of our continental shelf. The work that is under way is for the Atlantic and the Arctic. It has been a joint effort between our department's hydrography group, the Geological Survey of Canada, GSC, group within Natural Resources Canada, NRCan, and Foreign Affairs.

It has been a 10-year effort. Our 10 years are up, in that we have to make our submission in December of this year. Plans are in place, and we are confident that we will get our submission and be able to move this forward.

You've seen media reports suggesting that we're looking at an area to add to Canada's continental shelf that is approximately the size of the prairie provinces. It is a very substantial piece of territory. It speaks to specific rights to the bottom and to resources on the bottom.

You also asked when it will be heard.

We have until December to do the submission. We know that the commission is a number of years behind in looking at submissions, so there is a bunch of submissions piled up. We anticipate it will probably be five or six years before we have to defend our submission.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome.

The main estimates involve a decrease of $16.7 million related to the implementation of the new aquaculture initiative. Could you give us an idea of what this is all about?

Also, as has been indicated, the sustainable aquaculture program has been cut by $17 million. Why has it been cut nearly in half? What programs would be affected if that funding is not put back in place?

I would also like to ask you whether there is a plan to expand the salmon farming open-net industry on the west coast of this country. Is there a plan to expand the salmon open-net concept across the country?

Thank you.

[Trevor Swerdfager]

With respect to the program, as I mentioned, the budget allocation was provided to the department in a five-year timeframe. The five-year timeframe comes to an end at the end of this fiscal year; it sunsets.

If the government chooses to not renew the program or extend it as part of its budgetary process, there are four program areas that would be affected. The first is those activities we undertake now to build and expand and improve the regulatory framework, environment, and management for the aquaculture sector.

The second major program that would be affected is our science work with respect to aquaculture, which has approximately half the program's current financial allocation.

The third part of the program that would be affected is what we call innovation and market access, which funds technology development and sustainability with respect to the sector.

The fourth element of the program that would be affected is our sustainability reporting initiative, which seeks to report on the sustainability of the sector overall.

All of those entail people, activities, a whole variety of things. It is approximately half of the department's resources that are currently allocated to aquaculture, which would be lost if that program were to disappear.

The department would obviously have some significant challenges to address in terms of how we would move forward with aquaculture in the environment, in that context. We would have to work our way through that. We would be in a position to make some decisions as to how we would do so once we receive whatever is in the budget. At this point we're planning on a roughly status quo track. If things were to change, obviously we would adjust.

The second part of your question has to do with the use of open-net pen activities in British Columbia.

The department is a regulator and a manager of aquaculture. We don't have an expansion plan. It's not our role. We're not the industry. The industry will come forward with whatever proposals it has. The department will treat those as it does any other regulatory activity. If people choose to submit proposals for expansion in activities in British Columbia, those will be treated through our normal regulatory process. We don't have something in place that says we're proposing that the industry expand in a particular way, time, or place. It's not our role to do that.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

What about across the country?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

On the third part of the question, in terms of across the country, as you may know, our regulatory role in British Columbia is rather different from in other parts of the country as a result of some jurisprudence in B.C. The federal government has a substantially different role in British Columbia. We have a whole regulatory regime in place that reports up to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In the rest of the country, the jurisdiction over aquaculture is shared between the federal and provincial governments, and so on. If we had expansion proposals elsewhere in the country, they'd be treated through that system as well.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much.

Does DFO have plans to put money aside to implement any of the recommendations of the Cohen commission? If so, how many, and if not, why not?

On your response, it would indicate to me that there is a possibility of the expansion of the open-net industry on the west coast of this country. If I understand correctly, I know it's just one area, but the Cohen commission indicated quite clearly that this should stop. I'd like your comment on that, because you've indicated that if the proposals come forward, you have a process to deal with that. There's nothing to say the expansion will not take place. Is that correct?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

I'll answer that in two parts.

First, on the resources question, which we got into a little bit, the program for aquaculture in British Columbia is funded through A-base resources. The implementation of the Pacific aquaculture regulation will continue regardless of any changes made with respect to the sustainable aquaculture program.

When the government moved into that regulatory role, resources were provided to implement the regulation, to put in place new enforcement officers, to put in place regulatory liaison officers—I guess, is the best way to put it—and so on. The ability the department has to manage the sector effectively and discharge its responsibilities in British Columbia will not be affected by any resource changes around the sustainable aquaculture program, with the possible exception that some of our science resources are tied into that. In terms of the regulatory agenda, it will proceed.

More specifically, with respect to the reference to the Cohen commission, as the minister mentioned the other day, the government is continuing to analyze the recommendations of that report. It has not formed its conclusions as to how it will go forward on all of the recommendations, including those related to aquaculture.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much.

In fact, what you're telling me is that there's no funding allocated to implement the Cohen commission report. I know it's the sustainable aquaculture program that's being cut, but it's up to the department to decide and the government to decide whether there will be an expansion of the open-net industry on the west coast of this country. There's absolutely nothing to stop that.

If you look at what the Cohen commission has recommended, I know it's just in one specific area, but if you look at it, it could play right across the coast of British Columbia. Basically, what you're telling us is that if there's a proper application in place for more open net in the salmon industry, it could well be approved. Is that correct?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

Again, I would emphasize that the government hasn't reached its conclusions with respect to the Cohen commission recommendations, including those related to aquaculture. So I want to make clear, when you indicate what I'm telling you, what I'm trying to make sure I tell you is that the government still hasn't reached its conclusions with respect to Cohen, so I wouldn't want to convey any suggestion the government will accept, reject, or endorse those recommendations. That will come forward.

Insofar as the question about the future of aquaculture is concerned, again, from our point of view, essentially what will happen is the industry will determine whether it wishes to submit applications for expansion or not. That'll be a business decision they make and we'll analyze those when they come.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

At this time we will suspend our sitting. We will resume immediately following the votes, in approximately the 12:10 or 12:15 range. We'll see all members back here shortly.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I call this meeting back to order. I thank the officials for their patience.

Our next round will be a five-minute round. We'll start off with Mr. Donnelly—sorry, Mr. Toone.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're as surprised as I am.

Thank you for coming. My first question's going to be on the Experimental Lakes Area, ELA. It was announced that the government wants to shut it down. There was some talk about third party management, that third parties would perhaps take possession of the ELA, that the government would actually cede them. What are the discussions regarding that possibility? Is the government prepared to keep responsibility for liability if there were to be a ceding of the ELA?

[Kevin Stringer]

Thank you for the question.

Indeed the government did announce that we would not be operating the Experimental Lakes Area going forward. We did express a hope that we would be able to identify another operator from universities or non-government organizations that would wish to be the operator.

What I can tell you is we are in discussions with potential operators now. We're in discussions with Ontario as well, which is the fee-simple owner of the area. I am not at liberty to say what's happening in terms of those discussions.

The issue of liability is something we are talking about. The government's been clear, however. We've given our notice that we will no longer be involved in operating it as of September 1 this coming year.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

If the government were to retain liability, what kinds of costs are we looking at? What would be the projections there?

[Kevin Stringer]

The issue of liability is complex. There are a number of issues. One is the actual lakes themselves and ensuring they come back, are remediated to a natural state. There are a number of facilities also that we've built in the areas. Then there are boats, docks, and slips, and all those types of things. There are different types of issues.

We are talking to Ontario right now about remediation and what will be required for remediation if there's not an operator. We're starting to take some action in terms of ensuring it's brought back, if there is an appropriate operator, to a proper state for a new operator.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you.

I have another question on another subject.

Concerns have been raised about DFO. They'll no longer be conducting environmental assessments of proposed aquaculture sites once the changes to the Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act are implemented. At the same time, the department has a mandate to protect wild fish. How do you expect to be able to carry out your mandate if you're no longer conducting environmental assessments?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

I guess there are a couple of things to point out.

First, the regulatory regime that's in place for aquaculture today will continue into the future. Environmental assessments of aquaculture sites will be conducted in two different ways.

Again, we always have to distinguish British Columbia versus—I don't want to be pejorative—the rest of the country. It's a verbal shorthand; take it for that. Essentially, in British Columbia, the assessment of the environmental implications of all aquaculture sites will be considered as part of the regulatory process, and so the provisions that historically have been addressed by the provincial and federal environmental assessment processes in British Columbia will be addressed through the Pacific aquaculture regulatory process that's in place there now. Those will not be changed. Those have not been changed, rather, by the Fisheries Act.

On the east coast, where we are getting into environmental assessments of aquaculture sites, essentially what will happen in the future going forward is the provincial process remains in place. To the extent there are federal interests in some of the projects, insofar as where they're located, the act would be triggered. “Triggered” is not really the right term now; it would be applied. The manner in which the assessments are undertaken in the future will be somewhat different.

As you probably are aware, under the Environmental Assessment Act, aquaculture is not listed as one of the projects on the schedule, so it's our expectation that the majority of environmental assessment work will be done via the province in question, depending on where it is. We will work through the existing permitting mechanisms that are in place to address the federal obligations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

We'll move on now to Mrs. Davidson.

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

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the witnesses for being back with us again.

On Tuesday I asked a question about the supplementary estimates. It related to the $1.5 million that was spent on implementing the Asian carp initiative. We also know that we have had a fairly robust lamprey eel program for several years. Can anybody tell me where it's funded from, and if in fact there are any changes to it? Is it contemplated to continue at the same level?

[Kevin Stringer]

Thanks for the question.

The sea lamprey control program is one that Canada's been involved in jointly with the United States for many years. The primary objective of the program is to minimize sea lamprey populations in support of fish community objectives in the Great Lakes, like the rehabilitation of trout populations.

We use an integrated pest management approach that includes stock assessment to determine abundance and distribution of the lampreys. We use a lampricide program to control and eliminate larval populations. We do the construction of spawning barriers and traps in the Great Lakes tributaries to reduce or eliminate the reproduction of sea lampreys.

Since 2006, DFO has spent $8 million. This is expected to continue. There's no plan for any change in that regard. That $8 million a year, I should be clear, is in partnership with the U.S.

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

Okay, thanks very much.

Going back again to the supplementaries, in number 13 it says:

Transfer to Environment – To provide accommodation for Fisheries and Oceans employees housed in Environment’s facilities to support the implementation of the Species at Risk Act

I understand that the departments do work together; they collaborate. They hopefully are trying to find savings through joint efforts. I think we've seen it in other departments as well. We've seen it in Shared Services Canada. I'm hoping that this is something along the same lines.

I'm wondering if anybody could talk about the issue and how DFO and Environment Canada, or any other department that you might work with, work together on programs and projects and provide examples perhaps of how that saves taxpayer dollars.

[Roch Huppé, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

I'll talk about the first portion of your question.

The actual transfer's really in relation to the renewed funding that we received for species at risk. Last year there was funding that was sunsetting and through budget 2012 we actually received $24.6 million over three years.

This is obviously, as you mentioned, something we deliver in partnership with other departments, Environment being one of them.

When we receive new funding, in such cases, we divide the funding in the envelope to the best of our capacities of where it should go, which department is assuming which costs. In this particular case, the transfer is done because we basically owe $46,000 to Environment Canada because we are using their facilities.

The initial stage when we divided the envelope was not taken into account, so we are just re-balancing the books as to who's covering which cost.

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

Does the department actively look for ways to increase efficiencies in this manner in collaborating with the other departments?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

I'll give you a short answer so I don't get beeped again, because it's actually a very large topic.

Specifically with respect to the species at risk program, the hub of your question, essentially we work very closely with Environment Canada in its role both as Environment Canada, so to speak, and the ministry responsible for parks. So it's really a three departmental thing, even though it's two ministers. Essentially the species at risk program is jointly managed by the three agencies. We are working at a series of levels to make sure that our programs align so that we don't have conflicting regulations, policies, programs, that sort of thing. We've got three programs that we actually administer jointly to transfer funds to project proponents doing work on the ground and on the landscape. Again, it's a single administration for almost three programs, but it's a central administrative hub.

We've got a whole series of things that we do in collaboration with respect to enforcement of the act so that our enforcement officers don't trip over each other. It's a nice urban myth to say I had an enforcement officer from Fisheries one day and Environment another day and CFIA another day and so on. We work very hard to make sure that actually doesn't happen.

I would conclude by saying that kind of experience is actually replicated in quite a number of other domains. Species at risk is arguably the best example of it, but by no means is it the only area where we work closely with other fellow departments to achieve financial savings and program efficiencies.