Fisheries Committee on April 23rd, 2015

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

Thank you very much.

I have a couple of things but I just have a couple of minutes. I want to go back. I had asked the minister about the aquaculture activities regulations changes, and she didn't get a chance to respond. I'm concerned because I believe the people who have raised these concerns have a great deal of credibility. I raised the question: why didn't you consider their concerns?

I guess in your wisdom you decided that it was going to be okay anyway. The second part of my question was this. When are those regulations going to be implemented?

[Matthew King]

Thank you for the question.

Mr. Chair, we are hoping to have the regulations up and in force in 2015.

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

The other question I have is that in the estimates there's quite an increase in the aboriginal strategies and governance budget. I raised a question earlier about the tension, the conflict, that's happened around herring with first nations in British Columbia, the Nuu-chah-nulth, for example. Even though the Supreme Court in 2014 confirmed that in fact they do have commercial access to the resource, the Government of Canada has taken them now through another process where there has to be some further analysis.

I have two questions, then. First, could you explain what this budget line item will do? Second, could you give me within the time I have a brief explanation of what DFO's strategy is with respect to recognizing the constitutional rights of first nations and their access to the resource, not only in British Columbia but in this country?

[Matthew King]

Thank you for the question.

I can start off, and maybe Kevin can come back to the two programs in question.

The issue of implementing the section 35 rights is something, I think, that is at the forefront of everything we do in our department, particularly in British Columbia. There are a number of processes going on now that were announced by the minister of AANDC last summer. For example, we are now happily back at the treaty table in British Columbia, where we anticipate accelerating work with five or six first nations who need to complete fisheries chapters to complete a treaty. We're hopeful that the work will carry on over the summer and into the fall and yield results.

We're just at the beginning stages of doing what could be interesting work with, for example, the Haida, where we are just now sitting down with them and trying to work out terms of reference and a way forward, where we'd get into sustained discussions and consultations about what incremental treaty arrangements would be, again with the idea that we are going to give life to the section 35 protection, but not necessarily inside the treaty process.

Similarly, we are starting discussions with the coastal first nations. Here we're asking and wanting to sit down and begin to have discussions about what non-treaty arrangements would look like.

These initiatives, I think, are to a major degree influenced by the various reports of Mr. Doug Eyford, who did quite a lot of work on behalf of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. We are now on those three initiatives working quite closely with our colleague departments in British Columbia and with first nations to find a way forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Kamp, you have two minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to return to Ms. Thomas, if I can. I appreciated the very helpful detailed response to the previous question.

My understanding is that since the Kitsilano station was closed, there have been in the neighbourhood of 900 or so, perhaps a few less, distress incidents in the greater Vancouver area. In every case, with the newly configured arrangement of resources with Sea Island, the inshore rescue boat station that runs several months of the year, and a greater role for the Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue, there's been an effective response.

But with respect to this particular incident, are you saying that there wouldn't have been a different response if Kitsilano had still been operational?

[Jody Thomas]

First, the search and rescue system in Vancouver harbour is working exactly as we had expected. Vancouver remains the most serviced port in Canada.

In terms of this particular rescue, whether the coast guard had been the on-scene commander or the federal monitoring officer, we would still have used Western Canada Marine Response Corporation to respond to this spill.

The amount of equipment available at Kitsilano was not sufficient. It was a complex operation. We didn't have the skimming capacity within the coast guard. Also notwithstanding the “polluter pays” regime as it exists in Canada, no matter what role the coast guard is playing, whether FMO or on-scene commander, we go to the response organization to do the response.

The boom that was available at Kitsilano was not sufficient. They were a search and rescue station. They had some environmental response equipment stored there. They were not environmental-response first responders.

We have a professional team at Sea Island with highly trained environmental response officers, and they were on scene with WCMRC.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Muldoon, before we conclude, I believe you've found what you were looking for.

[Marty Muldoon]

I had two things. I just wanted to correct a matter of record.

Earlier in my remarks, at the very tail end, I said there was $6 million for the polar class icebreaker. Then, as well, the refit money is in the budget. I said that was for the CCGS Amundsen. Actually, I wanted to state for the record that it's for the Louis S. St-Laurent.

Second, regarding the member's question on the science program, I admit I wasn't quite sure where you were seeing that number, because in our department we treat science as an enabler of many different programs, so it doesn't show up as a line item in the main estimates. But to answer your question and, I hope, to adequately remove the need to provide an answer to you in writing, over the last couple of years, as the committee is well aware, we have seen a lot of severance settlements, and those kinds of things in the government as we have gone through those changes, from an HR perspective. That was the same for the science side.

You will see as a printed item in our main estimates under the science program, “Hydrographic Products and Services”, a $4 million reduction. Two million dollars of that is due to us no longer needing the money that was provided to pay those severances. The other $2 million had to do with some royalties we received. This year we don't have them, so they're not there. It's a reduction in the main estimates, but it's not an actual take-away from the science program.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

On behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank the officials for appearing before us today and answering our questions. We certainly do appreciate your time.

There being no further business, the meeting is adjourned.