Fisheries Committee on April 23rd, 2015

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

Thank you, Minister.

Can anyone tell me whether or not there are other species being examined under the species at risk?

[Kevin Stringer, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Sure, I can give some information.

Currently there are 111 aquatic species that are listed under the species at risk. COSEWIC, which is the independent scientific body, makes recommendations to the minister. There's a process to consider those recommendations. We do a recovery-potential assessment—can you recover the species?—we do a socio-economic analysis, and we do consultations on it as well.

We have a number of those in the hopper. There are some interesting ones: Atlantic cod, some of the Atlantic salmons, and a number of other species that are currently going through that process.

As I said, there are 111 species that are already on the list, so they've already gone through that process, and it is a regular cycle. I'll get you the specific number. I think there are 25 that we have not listed, but there are 107 that are in the process of a decision about whether to list them or not.

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

Thank you.

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

Thank you. On the Marathassa spill, “world class” means excellent. It doesn't mean perfect. I commend you and all your colleagues on the all-night effort and your commitment to do an assessment to make sure we're always improving and doing better all the time. That's world class.

Minister, thanks for being with us. I think it was an extraordinary budget for fisheries.

In terms of the Pacific Salmon Foundation, I would appreciate if you could comment on what led to our government investing the $2 million. We know the Pacific Salmon Foundation promotes science, education, and habitat, engages with 30,000 to 40,000 volunteers in the province of B.C., and has a 10 to one return on investment. For others who would think of approaching our government in budget 2016, what would be some of the best practices that might be embodied there?

Before you answer, I would appreciate also posing another question. You referred to science and infrastructure, and mentioned that there is an $80 million amount in the budget that would bolster our commitment to the quality of science. It would be interesting, I think, for us to hear how you see the government maybe deploying that $80 million amount.

If we have time, I would love to hear from the coast guard on what they think about an idea I have vetted publicly to impose criminal liability on those who would abandon vessels on the coast of B.C.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Okay, well there are a number of questions in there.

I will just respond to the Pacific Salmon Foundation. They currently have a research project where they're going to study sea survival of wild Atlantic salmon. I don't have to tell you how important wild Atlantic salmon is to British Columbians. There are several partners in that project and with the $2 million in the budget the federal government will become a partner.

As you know we support the wild salmon fishery in British Columbia in a number of different ways. One is through supporting the education of schoolchildren and supporting hatcheries. We support hatcheries to the tune of $26 million. That combined with an additional investment in the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program will do a lot of good work in B.C., on top of the work we have already done. The current budget has $30 million for the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program, which is on top of what we have already spent.

I will ask the commissioner of the coast guard to speak to the science because the science will be invested in our world-class tanker safety system, which is part of what the coast guard does. I'll ask Jody to respond to that.

[Jody Thomas]

It's probably Trevor on science.

[Trevor Swerdfager]

I can talk about the science aspects of it.

With respect to the infrastructure commentary around the $80 million, there are a number of different things. We operate, as you know, out of 11 major research institutions across the country. They are a variety of laboratory and operational facilities.

The money that is coming into those is quite varied. It varies literally from the rather, frankly, humdrum—we're going to fix the HVAC at a particular building that's in need of repair—through to more substantial upgrades in our wharf structures in a couple of places.

A big push that the department is making is to expand its capacity in the genetics-genomics area. Biocontainment is very important for us. We're upgrading a number of our laboratory facilities to improve our ability to work on a number of genetic experimentation areas where biocontainment is very important. We also have, on the physical oceanography and physical chemistry side of our work, a fair bit of work under way to upgrade our ability to process samples at a higher rate. I won't go into the details on that, but there are a series of automations in there.

All of this will come together to position ourselves in a way that we can generate science advice in a much more timely and effective and broad-based fashion.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

If I could add as well, some of that science will inform decisions taken with regard to what the coast guard does in responding to incidents.

[Jody Thomas]

The science is a critical element of how we respond to incidents. Understanding the behaviour of substances in the water is critical in terms of knowing how to respond. Knowing what the habitat is in the area and all those kinds of things are critical to an effective response.

With regard to derelict vessels, we're working with Transport Canada now to look at how to manage the derelict vessel problem. Certainly with the cost for remediating a 100-foot vessel varying between $10 million to $50 million it is a significant problem. It is about the owner of the vessel being responsible, absolutely. Some sort of sanction to force owners to be responsible for their vessels is critical.

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

Thank you for that.

I would just like to point out the excellent work that's being done on the west coast by your scientists, including Dr. Miller. You probably know about it. She is working with the Pacific Salmon Foundation on a review of over 30,000 fish, looking at 45 different pathogens across five different tissue areas. It seems to be world-leading research that is going to inform some of our policies and what we do in both the public and private sectors.

Do you have any comment on that element of the science?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

I'll ask Trevor to comment on that.

[Trevor Swerdfager]

Dr. Miller's work is indeed world class. She's part of a comprehensive team. She's part of a big lab, and she's by no means working alone. Her work is, as you've already described, really important in enhancing our ability to understand interactions between wild and farmed animals in the sea.

She's doing an awful lot of work, as you've suggested, in the area of pathogens, but as I mentioned, she's not alone in that work. Dr. Johnson, Dr. Jones, Dr. Beamish, to name but three, are also heavily involved in trying to expand our understanding of how that particular suite of ecosystems on the west coast in Haida Gwaii south, if you will, in that kind of context, are affected and influenced by ocean conditions, by the changing ecosystem structure, and so on. So there's quite a wide range of work there to enhance our understanding of what's happening in that part of the world.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Weston.

Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you for being here to talk about the estimates and the department.

I'm going to focus my comments on my concerns about the poor response to the fuel spill in the Vancouver harbour, and how that ties into budget cuts in the estimates. I note that there has been a more than 50% cut in environmental response services since the 2013-14 budget, so it's not surprising that the response to this unfortunate incident in Vancouver harbour was so far from world class.

The first question I have is on the briefing yesterday. On page 6 it says that the coast guard will take over the response to a marine pollution incident if the ship owner is unwilling to, unable to, or is unknown, and will provide on-scene commander roles.

Is that the situation with this Vancouver harbour spill from the Marathassa?

[Jody Thomas]

In the case of the Marathassa.... Number one, I have to clarify there has not been a 50% reduction to the environmental response budget.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

That's in the estimates document we have here.

[Jody Thomas]

Right. We had a one-time infusion of money to respond to the Brigadier General M.G. Zalinski wreck in northern B.C. That was $46.5 million for one year. We spent under $25 million cleaning that vessel and that money is no longer in the budget. It is not a cut to the A-base budget.

We have had a small reduction in the budget due to—

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Okay.

In terms of the on-scene commander, was that the case, since the vessel was not identified until a number of hours after the spill was first called in?

[Jody Thomas]

The polluter-pay system is very clear that the polluter is responsible, and if the polluter cannot be identified, then yes, coast guard is the on-scene commander. That was the role we played.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

According to the Premier of British Columbia, there did not appear to be an incident command protocol in place, which may explain the confusion and the absence of notification of the City of Vancouver for 12 hours.

I'd like to clarify something, Ms. Thomas. You made a comment to a previous questioner that the coast guard was immediately taking action, etc., but according to the former commander of the coast guard base, there was just a rubber boat on site, because the hovercraft in Richmond couldn't operate on the oil slick on the waters, and it was actually 12 hours after the spill notification happened that the absorbent booms were finally in place.

Is having the booms in place in a close-in spill in clear weather and calm waters...? Do you see that as a world-class timing for a spill in a location like this?

[Jody Thomas]

That's a relatively simplistic explanation of what occurred.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Could you just answer the question?

[Jody Thomas]

I am.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

[Jody Thomas]

We were the incident commander, which is different from being the on-scene commander. The incident commander is in the integrated command centre where we bring everybody involved in the spill into a centre. We were in charge there. There was never a loss of coast guard leadership in the incident command.