Fisheries Committee on April 23rd, 2015

[Tom Rosser]

We have regular ongoing discussions with representatives of the industry and other concerned federal departments about potential markets, as the deputy indicated. Ministers and deputies, not only from our department but from others, will regularly advocate on behalf of the Canadian seal industry in their travels overseas. We work in close collaboration with stakeholders, and we'll work with them to figure out where best and how best to target the available resources to open markets for Canadian seal products.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

I was in Taiwan a couple of months ago with a parliamentary delegation. One of the reasons I wanted to go to Taiwan was that they decided to ban Canadian seal products in 2012.

When that happened, the anti-seal hunt groups billed it over here in Canada as yet another country coming out against the Canadian seal hunt, but when I got over there and spoke to everybody, from their president to their government officials, what they said was that the ban was more about banning the trade in marine mammals, specifically Japanese whaling and Japanese dolphin-hunting. It had nothing to do with Canadian seals.

Here's my question. The $5.7 million for markets is one thing, but what exactly is the Canadian government doing to combat the anti-seal protest groups? In Taiwan, for example, their officials were quoting IFAW and Greenpeace in terms of why there shouldn't be a seal hunt because they were killing baby seals. Nothing could be further from the truth.

To summarize, what's being done on the diplomatic front?

[Matthew King]

Mr. Chairman, in every country that I have visited—and I actually had quite similar reactions in some—we are using our embassies abroad to open doors for us and to get us audiences with decision-makers in those countries. When I was last in China, I met what I'm sure is the first-ever animal rights group established in China. It was a very vocal group. I wouldn't say that it was the most coherent presentation I'd ever heard, but it did drive home to me the idea that if we're to do this, it's going to take a constant diplomatic effort.

If I could get back to your question on the $5.7 million, I think what Tom is saying is that we only got the money in our budget a couple of days ago, but we do work very closely with the industry in this country and we're going to meet with them very quickly and try to find a way to maximize the impact of this $5 million. But at the end of the day, it's going to be about continuously representing Canada's position in these countries and continuously driving home the point that we believe the ban is ill advised, and that will be sustained. It has to be, I think.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cleary.

Mr. Leef.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

When I look over these estimates, there are always bigger numbers in them. In our review of them, I think, like Mr. Sopuck indicated, that I'm interested in results and not always the process of things. I just want to highlight a couple of points to you that I think are more congratulatory in nature. I've obviously spent some time travelling around the country and I have a couple of recent examples that I'd like to just bring to your attention.

You know that the results that you're providing and these asks that we're seeing in some of these line items are good investments. I've met with a number of consultative working groups that meet on a regular basis with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, including members of the hunting and angling advisory panel, and they're very pleased with the work and relationship that they have with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I heard that very recently.

They also highlighted to me, which I think is worth passing on, that the educational strategy that has been deployed at the front-line level by officers instead of enforcement response actions has been well grounded. It seems as though their education and discretion in deployment is winning favour in the communities across this country that I've spoken to. I think that's equally important for you to realize because a lot of what you're doing, a lot of what we're asking for in this budget in terms of big numbers, makes a difference to day-to-day Canadians and individuals in this country.

In respect to the coast guard, I had a great opportunity several months ago to board the Laurier with Captain Bill Noon. At that time he was doing a huge school engagement when they returned from the Franklin expedition and had the bell on display. I can tell you right now that the coast guard connecting with Canadians, in particular the youth of our country, is a great way to build those bridges and a great way to invest in the historical contributions that the coast guard is making.

In respect to the investments around the helicopter fleet, there was an interesting anecdotal story there about how the coast guard pilot at the time was engaged in three different activities, one being scientific research and one being a search and rescue mission, on the very same day that they discovered pieces that helped lead us to find the Franklin ship. It shows the diversity and the interoperability of those services and the exchange that the coast guard has with Canadian Forces, particularly in the high Arctic.

I know your investments in small craft harbours are making big differences in Arctic communities. The recreational fisheries partnership fund, with 2,000 linear kilometres of stream habitat restored now, is a wonderful investment. There are great community-based projects with thousands of volunteers, millions of dollars leveraged, great community partners, and smaller contribution agreements like the ones that you sign onto with the salmon subcommittee for the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board to let them do the important work that they need to do across transboundary waters.

I think it's important for us as parliamentarians to thank you and acknowledge the great work that you're doing, which makes a meaningful difference in individual lives and are very much kitchen table discussion items for families in this country.

I want to ask one piece about the Pacific and Atlantic commercial fisheries initiative. I'm just wondering if you can provide some information about detail around first nations participation and maybe some other accomplishments in the program, because I do see line items around aboriginal strategies and governance. I was pleased to be at a fisheries hatchery fully run by first nations communities in Penticton recently. These are great success stories, and if you could just provide a little bit of information on how these main estimates will deliver those programs for Canadians and first nations, it would be wonderful to hear.

[Kevin Stringer]

Thank you very much for all of that.

In the main estimates the two programs, the Atlantic integrated fisheries program and the Pacific integrated fisheries program, are both highlighted to the joint tune of $33 million per year. It does important work.

Our overall relationship with aboriginal groups is enormously important and we have a set of programs. We have those two. We also have the aboriginal fisheries strategy program, which is $22 million a year, and we have the aboriginal aquatic resource and oceans management program as well, which is $14 million a year. Then we have a species at risk program with first nations and aboriginal groups.

All are important in terms of the relationships and they are bearing results. They do assist us in terms of effectively managing a fishery and the other things that we have to manage effectively. We're also seeing results in communities. They're becoming major players in the fishery themselves. The training aspects of these programs are around business development, around fisheries management, around training in governance, around developing operational policies, and around harvest training. All those types of things are bearing fruit.

What we're also now seeing is an expansion of aboriginal groups using their own funds and funds from elsewhere into other parts of the fishery, by becoming involved in hatcheries, becoming involved in aquaculture, becoming involved in processing, becoming involved in vessel maintenance, and developing those types of facilities with the core funding that we've been providing over the years. AICFI and PICFI are the two highlighted this year, and with some important funding.

You've asked for some numbers. In B.C., 97 first nations participate in 25 groups. These are groups of first nations that work together. On the Atlantic, with the AICFI program, it is 31 first nations of the 34 involved. It really does get most of the first nations that we have relationships with involved in the fishery and becoming players and partners with us in it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Leef.

Mr. Weston.

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

Thank you for your work and what you do, especially in British Columbia. I'm sure that my colleagues from the Maritimes would say the same thing, but as a British Columbian we really care about fisheries and the environment. Every day we see a different story, which I'm sure is challenging for you.

I would appreciate getting back to the abandoned vessels questions. My colleague, Ms. Crowder, has brought in a private member's bill. At one level I applaud what she's done because she has spurred a conversation about a very intractable problem, a problem that covers different jurisdictions and that always leads to the question—where does the money come from when a vessel needs to be towed? There is also the question of identifying the owners.

I wonder if you'd care to discourse a little on funding a response and identification of owners. I raise this issue of liability, which I've been discussing publicly, of trying to impose some higher sense of accountability on those who would abandon vessels. In the Squamish area, for instance, one individual has abandoned four vessels and is renowned for doing this because he thinks he can.

[Jody Thomas]

I know the individual you're speaking of and we have done significant work to clean up many of his vessels.

The private member's bill is admirable in its intent but it doesn't get to the problem. Other jurisdictions, Washington state notably among them, which has enacted similar legislation, have found that in fact it's had the perverse outcome of allowing ship owners and wreck owners to walk away from the vessels, leaving the liability in this case for the state.

When we do go to clean up an abandoned vessel, and when we know who the owner is, we go after the owner for the funds for the cleanup. If they're unable to pay there is something called the ship-source oil pollution fund in Canada, which is an insurance regime, essentially, and it's part of an international regime. We go to them to be reimbursed for the expenditures dealing with any cleanup.

It is a big problem and we are working now with Transport Canada to look at how we can bring firmer regulations around the issue of wrecks to make owners more responsible.

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

I'm glad you're doing that.

If we can get back to the infrastructure issue, Mr. Swerdfager, you touched on this earlier. We see there's $80 million in the budget to bolster laboratories and federal plants around the country. You mentioned there were 11 of those. Can you give us some idea of how stakeholders can effect the deployment of those funds when we have people who, at least in British Columbia, really care about science and scientists? For instance, if they knew the work that Dr. Miller was doing more, then they would be very happy to hear about that.

Do you have any suggestions on how members in the community can support the work that's being done in laboratories, and influence how the funding is to be deployed?

[Matthew King]

I'll just make a couple of contextual comments, and then if Trevor could speak to the science-specific part of that, that would be very helpful.

Minister Shea did announce this funding in October, I believe. Part of the $551 million in infrastructure that's coming to DFO, indeed $80 million, has been reserved to help us update our real property. I would remind members that I think we are the third or fourth biggest real property holders in government, so this is money that is very much welcome. There's a direct line of sight to our corporate risk profile that's set out in the RPP.

This $80 million indeed will apply to our science facilities, but it's also eligible to be applied to other projects like our Atlantic salmon fishways, search and rescue stations, or even departmental buildings. It's additive to our A-base real capital budget. As I say, it will make a real difference over the next two years.

Trevor, did you want to speak to the science part of it?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

Thanks, Deputy.

There are a couple of things to say in response to the idea of involvement in not only the allocation of some of the resources the deputy's spoken to but science in general in the department.

All science that's effective is done in partnership with others. No one does effective science on their own. A big part of our work is to work very closely with academic institutions across the country; with science providers like the Huntsman Marine Science Centre, for example, down east; with a whole range of science practitioners, both domestically and internationally. Certainly the first avenue in, if you will, is through many of those academic institutions.

The Canadian Consortium of Oceans Research Universities has been very active in seeking to articulate a national oceans research agenda. There are 11 major universities involved in oceans research, and we're working with them both individually and collectively to work out something of a research agenda and how we plug into that more effectively.

The bottom line in all of this is that what we're trying to do is continue to drive our science very much to our program goals and objectives, and to support those, so we work also quite closely with folks in industry and others to make sure that the work we're doing aligns with the decision-making that the minister has as her responsibilities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

Just to follow up on that, I was trying to understand how the science and research budget has changed since the 2013-14 estimates. Could you give me one aggregate figure of change to science and research funding?

[Marty Muldoon]

I can take a quick look, sure.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Perhaps I could do some of my other questions while you're looking for that.

[Marty Muldoon]

Sure.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Back to the Vancouver area oil spill, I have to say that I was very disappointed that the Conservative members of this committee have decided to have the posture of cheerleaders when, although the coast guard members themselves are professional and responsible, it's this government's cuts to things like budgets and the Kits coast guard base that have led to a confusing and slow response, and a real failure. The residents of metro Vancouver are very concerned that safety and services are being compromised, yet their interests are not being defended at this committee by their members of Parliament. I find that very disappointing.

In addition to coast guard cuts, Transport Canada has cut its marine safety budget 37% since 2007. Environment Canada has transferred the local environmental emergencies office to Montreal. When the boaters called them, the first response was, “What province are you calling from?” These are all very concerning.

I'm going to conclude this part by saying the cuts to the Kits coast guard base were strongly objected to by the search and rescue network in Vancouver. There were 20 million human transits annually within a 30-minute response radius of that base. This is the first time in 100 years that Vancouver does not have a federal full-time marine life-saving station. It was a very bad decision. We're seeing some of the consequences of it today and the members should be holding their government to account.

I have a question about that. Compared with the 2013-14 estimates, how would the reduction of $6 million in expenditures for search and rescue services, and the decrease of $18 million in spending for environmental response services, affect the coast guard's ability to respond in a more timely effective way in the future?

[Jody Thomas]

Those cuts I can't speak to, but our chief financial officer can.

There has been no reduction to environmental response capacity. It was a one-time accounting for the Brigadier General Zalinski operation. The A-base budget for the coast guard for environmental response has not been reduced.

In terms of search and rescue, we reorganized the coast guard in 2012 and we had realignments of programs. We increased money for the inshore rescue boat in Vancouver and we increased money for the auxiliary Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue in Vancouver. Other than that there has been no reduction in the search and rescue budget.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Some of the key search and rescue network people made it clear that the alternatives the coast guard proposed were in no way comparable to what was taken away.

I do want to ask about the Bunker C. According to Transport Canada only 5% to10% evaporates. In previous spills, Bunker C has been detected years later. What is the response plan? What is the toxicity and the impact on the benthic community and human beings of Bunker C, which is so toxic residents were advised not to clean up this material off the beaches because it takes hazardous waste disposal to deal with it? Can you explain the toxicity and how the department plans to clean it up from the seabed floor?

[Jody Thomas]

I can ask Trevor to speak to the toxicity.

[Trevor Swerdfager]

There are a number of aspects to that. I apologize for not having the figure in our overall budget handout. I wanted to get that—

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Could you table it afterwards please, the research cuts?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

Not a problem, we can do that.

Essentially the key thing is that many of the resources that we have available in the science sector now are focused very much on oil spill preparedness, response, and understanding things like and including Bunker C. We look at three things: how something behaves when it gets into the environment chemically and so on; what is its fate, i.e., where it goes; and what its impacts are.

Bunker C, or fuel oil number 6, is well known to us not only in DFO but within Environment Canada, which is really the expert on fuel content and quality. We are at a point where we know that we have some significant history with this particular substance. It behaves in a way that is quite predictable. Most of it as a result is skimmable. I don't know if that's an actual word, but we are able to skim very easily most of that off.

If we have large amounts of it that get into the ecosystem and persist for a while—as you point out it does have a degree of persistence to it—toxicity is always a measure of amount versus exposure. In this case we think that the exposure level to organisms is quite low. We have not yet detected any significant impacts from the spill on the biological community. We have not yet completed sampling of the sea floor, and the nematode community, and so on. We expect, but we don't know yet, that the impact of that will be minimal. I can't say for sure that those sampling activities have been done because it's a bit too early yet.

By and large the point is that this chemical, or this fuel rather, is well known to us in the community. We've worked with it extensively and we think we have the measures in place to deal with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chisholm.