Fisheries Committee on Dec. 10th, 2013

[Kevin Stringer]

Sorry, is what involved?

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

Is the IJC involved?

[Kevin Stringer]

Did you want to start, Dave?

[David Bevan]

We have arrangements with the U.S., as you're aware, on transboundary rivers through the Pacific Salmon Treaty process, and we manage jointly with respect to the fisheries. That creates a fairly close contact process for us on any kind of mining projects. Clearly, there are aboriginal, recreational, and commercial fisheries in those rivers, so we're going to look at protection of the habitat in those systems.

In any kind of decision on mines or any project, there's always an issue of who gets the benefit from taking a risk and who gets to bear the risk without the benefit. You really write that kind of process very clearly with a transboundary river. We are looking at whether or not the mine project is going to pose a risk to the fishery. We bear the benefit but we also bear the risk in terms of mitigating the risk on fish. The Alaskans bear all of the risk without the benefit, so there's going to be a dialogue needed in that kind of process. That's what will be expected through the relationship we have had over the years with them.

I don't know if you want to add anything.

[Kevin Stringer]

I don't know if the IJC is involved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Chisholm.

Mr. Weston.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Dickens wrote, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times”, and depending on what attitude you take, one could say it was the best or the worst. I have people in my office today from the sports fishing world who say that the fisheries department has the highest level of consultation of any department of Canadian government. I certainly see it in my riding. All of you probably know that we have some very activist people who care passionately about the fisheries.

I want to ask you to comment on two stories. One is Cohen and one is the coast guard.

With regard to Cohen, there are some who have said it's the worst of times, because the Government of Canada is not responding one by one to the 75 recommendations. Then there are others who say this government is integrating into its operations the recommendations of Cohen. Instead of trying to spread itself too thinly, they're taking specifics and actually working on them.

Similarly on the coast guard or on our operations generally, there are those who say the government is reorganizing things, and they have expressed some anxiety about that. But I've heard it said by a fisheries officer that this is the first time in a generation that the coast guard is being bolstered with long-term capital funding, and that the helicopters you're talking about and the 10 coast guard vessels that are being built in the riding I represent are all part of a bolstering of the coast guard that has really been unprecedented in decades.

Would you like to comment on those two tales, Cohen and what we're doing in our fisheries in terms of long-term funding?

[David Bevan]

I can start with Cohen and then turn it over to the commissioner on the coast guard.

On Cohen, I think it is pretty clear that we've taken to heart the recommendations. We are continuing with the Qualark Creek monitoring. We're doing the work that it was suggested be maintained. We've maintained vigilance on the river. We're spending a lot of money, probably in the range of $20 million a year, on sockeye in the Fraser River alone, in terms of science, monitoring, control, surveillance, etc.

We are not looking at extension of any activities in the Discovery Islands with respect to aquaculture. We are looking at a number of science projects and at investigating through a Genome B.C. program the possible distribution of disease organisms in wild and aquaculture fish and whether or not they're there, and if they are there, whether or not they are a problem. All those activities are under way with respect to our management of fisheries, in particular salmon fisheries in B.C.

When I was working in the region in the 1980s for a little while and also in the 1990s, we had a totally different approach to fisheries management at that time. You looked at stock aggregates. You had high harvest levels based on those stock aggregates. You looked at abundance as a group of populations went by, and you targeted based on that abundance.

We don't do that anymore. We look at the specific stocks that are involved in those migration patterns, and we target based on the weak stocks that are there. If we need to have a lower level of harvest notwithstanding the abundance, we take that into consideration. That's reflective of the wild salmon policy. Again that's something which Cohen looked at.

There were specific suggestions on organizations and on targets of time, etc. We didn't go down to that level of specificity, but we are in the spirit of where he was suggesting the department go. We are looking at that kind of approach to our management and are continuing in that direction.

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

So it's anything but an ignoring of Cohen. It's a specific approach on implementing Cohen.

[David Bevan]

Yes, it's general.

The wild salmon policy, for example, is integrated into how we do our business in integrated fish management programs. What I'm saying is I think it's part of the way we do our business now. That's reflective of the advice Cohen was giving as a result of his report.

[Marc Grégoire]

You're right to mention that the coast guard is cherished by this government. One of the first things I did when I became commissioner of the coast guard was I read the history of the coast guard that was published in a book for the 40th anniversary of the coast guard, which was created in 1962.

Never in the life of the coast guard have we seen such a massive investment at one time. In the last few years, the government has invested over $6 billion, and just in budget 2012, $5.2 billion. I described the helicopters. You mentioned the 10 big ships that will be replaced. We also received a significant amount of money for vessel life extensions. We have good ships that are well maintained, but we are now investing massively in the extension of the life of about 16 of those large vessels. Also, you didn't mention the up to 21 small vessels we're going to acquire. Quite soon we will issue the first draft of a request for proposal for the acquisition of up to 10 new lifeboats.

Yes, it's extremely encouraging to see all those investments in the coast guard, but it doesn't stop there. The government announced investment in the coast guard last winter. In March, Minister Lebel announced that the coast guard would implement an incident command system. The government has approved the funding for that initiative. That was great news for the coast guard.

The coast guard was facing significant problems this year with a shortage of money for fuel. The government recently awarded us up to $16 million in fuel money. That shows significant, and frankly fantastic, support of the coast guard.

Some of the things I mentioned you will see in supplementary estimates (C), because they were approved recently by Treasury Board, so they will come here for approval.

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

Monsieur Grégoire, do you want to comment on the fisheries science vessel?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Weston, your time is up.

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

He does want to, but he can't. Is that what you're saying?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

He can't.

Thank you, Mr. Weston.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

It's a pleasure to have you back.

It's certainly wonderful to hear that the government is supplying fuel for the coast guard vessels. That's helpful. We're certainly moving forward.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I think they deserve credit for providing fuel.

I asked a question last week about the ELA scientists at the Freshwater Institute in Winnipeg. I asked if they were declared surplus, and one of the witnesses indicated they were not, but I'm hearing they were and were offered other jobs with no job description. They don't even know what is being offered, if anything. Is that the case?

[David Bevan]

I think what are called workforce adjustment letters were provided.

[Kevin Stringer]

I checked, because the ADM for science isn't here today, and I wondered if that was going to come up. What he said, as I recall, sitting right there, was, “No, not yet, but very soon.” What I got today from him and Verdon was that it was that day. It was indeed the day that we were here when those letters were issued.

I don't know their specific nature, but the process is, as David was about to explain, you get an affected letter and then you get an opting letter. My understanding is that in some cases—and this is the way the whole system works, not just at ELA—a job offer is made. In other cases you have four months to decide what to do, and then usually a year to still be with the government. So far, we've managed, and the hope is we will with the ELA staff as well, but I believe those letters went out on the day we were here.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Stringer, but I understand they have to make a decision by January 8.

[Kevin Stringer]

I may be wrong about that, but I believe they have four months from when they receive it about which approach they want to take.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

So is January 8 not the proper date? If they continue working at the ELA under a new operator, will they be penalized by receiving a smaller severance package?

[Kevin Stringer]

As I understand it, our folks are in discussions with IISD, who would hopefully become the new operator, and I'm not sure what arrangements they would be making.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Will the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have any input whatsoever in this institute after?