Fisheries Committee on May 2nd, 2013

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

However, how will they be able to respond to emergencies if the one bilingual employee at the Halifax centre is busy?

[Jody Thomas]

There's more than one bilingual employee. There are three stands, one English and two bilingual, in the Halifax search and rescue centre. I'm not sure where the idea of one person came from. That's not in fact accurate. In MRSC Quebec, there's a single stand. It's one person who meets bilingual standards of BBB, so generally speaks in French rather than English. The situation in Halifax is that we've improved bilingual service and the number of people providing bilingual service to mariners over the single stand in Quebec.

That said, again, we will ensure that there is no impact on our delivery of service before we close the MRSC in Quebec or take any additional steps to do any further mergers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Tremblay.

Go ahead, Mr. Sopuck.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Thank you.

I was working for a forest company in Manitoba in the late 1990s. I was its environmental director. I saw the process DFO went through when it ramped up its fisheries habitat enforcement work in Prairie Canada: the rush to staff up, the greatly increased budgets. Those of us in the fisheries business and the forestry business were wondering what you were going to do, because the fish seemed to be doing fairly well before this time. Again, this is something that was thrust upon you. I think the budget increment for Manitoba, or perhaps for Prairie Canada, was about $20 million per year—just the increment to get that program up and running.

My question is—and I'd like as specific an answer as possible—in terms of real fish populations and in terms of real fisheries that people actually utilized and wanted, what did we get for that $20 million?

[David Balfour]

I don't know if we have the information with us to be able to answer that specific a question. I do think that with the investment we did have a capability throughout the prairie provinces and Ontario to review projects. We certainly were involved in doing that. But I think I'd put the emphasis on the design of the new program that we have that really will have us focused, in those areas and other areas of the country, on those projects that would have a critical impact on productive fisheries. That's really where we're headed, and that's the focus of the new alignment of our program.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Understood, and I'm a strong supporter of the realignment of the programming. And again, I don't doubt that back in those days there was lots of activity. I'm sure there was. But being on the ground there at the time, I saw little or nothing in terms of actual outcomes for fish populations that people wanted to fish.

As I said, we cannot mistake activity for actual results.

[David Balfour]

I would agree with you about the point, I will pass it over to my colleague Mr. Swerdfager to add to it.

But in terms of the analysis—and we don't have it here, but it can be provided on a province-by-province basis—historically we had been reviewing in the order of 8,000 referrals of projects. This was resulting, on average, in just above 800 actual authorizations, whereby the projects would be required to have advice and maybe approaches to mitigation to protect critical fisheries.

I think where we're headed is to see that the resources of the department are concentrated on those more critical projects and where we would be able to work with partners on the non-critical work that had been occurring in the past. As well, we would be continuing to provide operational statements and guidelines so that people could self-comply to be onside with the fish protection requirements.

Do you want to add? No?

That's the direction we're heading in, so as we go forward you'll see that the investment we'll be making is focused on what's critical.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

What I'm getting at is that I used to be head of a group that rehabilitated lakes. We put aerators on the lakes and allowed fish populations to grow and thrive. That is a real fisheries result. Again, that activity by itself may not generate, and more often than not does not generate, the results people want for the fish population.

You were given a fairly impossible task, then, the broad definition of fish habitat, and so on. I think the new regime we're working under now will be immeasurably better. I was very pleased to hear you talk about its benefits.

I'd like to switch gears completely now, to talk about the silver lamprey issue. It's been brought to our attention that there is a possible listing of the silver lamprey under SARA.

As you know, this committee just undertook a major study on invasive species in the Great Lakes. On the DFO website, regarding the silver lamprey, it's pointed out that the use of lampricides is one of the reasons the silver lamprey is potentially going to be listed.

What does this mean for the overall lamprey control program in the Great Lakes, which is absolutely critical to the fisheries that people want?

[David Balfour]

I'm afraid I'm going to give you a bit of a process answer, because we have advice from COSEWIC about the listing of the silver lamprey.

What lies ahead for us is to go through a recovery potential assessment and what that would require.

We would also need to carry out consultations, taking into account socio-economic considerations and so on, before we come to the minister with a recommendation about whether to go forward to the Minister of the Environment with a recommendation to list or not list. We're in the early stages of a process.

But clearly the point you've cited around the work that's being carried out in terms of the suppression of invasive sea lamprey and the implications for an indigenous lamprey species is going to be a critical point of consideration as we move forward.

I would expect that will be taken into account as we move forward with the advice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to thank officials for being with us here today and for taking the time to answer our questions. We appreciate it.

Once again, I apologize for starting late today. I think we've covered a lot of ground.

There being no further business, this committee stands adjourned.