Fisheries Committee on Dec. 10th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I call this meeting to order.

I'd like to thank the officials for coming back. You could say they're back by popular demand. The committee members have further questions for you, and I believe we're going to move right into questions.

Mr. Bevan, you don't have any opening statement today.

[David Bevan, Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Not today. I think we can go right into the questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

I think we're all familiar with our witnesses.

We'll start off with Mr. Kamp.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the officials for returning.

I have two areas I want to discuss with you, if I have time. Maybe I'll begin with the easier one.

In our most recent aquaculture report on closed containment, you'll recall that we commented on the fact that there's quite a patchwork of aquaculture regulations in Canada. There's British Columbia on the one side, where the federal government is responsible for the management of the operations and the tenures are granted by the province. There's P.E.I. on the other hand, where the federal government does it all. In New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador basically the provincial government does almost all of it.

We talked about the need for some sort of new approach to regulation and even suggested perhaps an aquaculture act. The response we got, I think I can say, was fairly non-committal. Could you tell us where you think you're going on this, the direction of the department in terms of solving this problem that's been identified by many, including this committee?

[David Bevan]

As you correctly pointed out, the spectrum of federal involvement goes from 100% in P.E.I. as a result of a 1928 arrangement, whereby in P.E.I. we look after leases as well as the licensing and control of the operations, through British Columbia where there is a lease by the province and regulation by the federal government, and through to a mix.

There are federal tasks that are done in other jurisdictions relevant to the use of feeds and drugs, etc., so that's still a federal role. You pointed out correctly that there is quite a mix of involvement, and there are a lot of different departments involved, federally and provincially.

We've been asked to come forward with some options for consideration that would range from cleaning up the regulatory varieties and trying to have a more one-stop-fits-all approach through to contemplating what the process might be if we were to consider an aquaculture act. The act itself, if that would be considered by government, would be a fairly complex process, because it would have to touch upon numerous other statutes. That's much more of a time-consuming and complex arrangement.

The other end of that spectrum would be to clean up our regulatory processes with a view to trying to make that more efficient, in order to reduce the burden on industry while still having a sustainable aquaculture program.

We can't speculate on where we're going to end up. That's not a decision for officials; that's a decision for the government. Our task is to provide options for consideration.

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

Thank you for that.

Let me go to the other area, and that's the amendments to the Fisheries Act and the new fisheries protection program.

You probably know that there have been some reviews of those changes, some positive and some more negative, I think. One was by Jeffrey Hutchings and John Post, both reputable fisheries biologists. They make a couple of claims that I need to get your input on.

First of all, they make a claim something like this, that 80% of the 71 fish species that are currently threatened or under the Species At Risk Act will no longer have habitat protection because of this change of law. Can you tell me what the facts are in this case?

[David Bevan]

I'll turn this over to Kevin shortly, but I think those papers were based on a couple of assumptions. First off, when you have a species at risk, there is a requirement under the Species at Risk Act to protect critical habitat. That has not changed with the changes to the Fisheries Act. That level of protection is expected and is an obligation that government has under the Species at Risk Act.

The other assumption that I think was made in the underpinning of that paper was that if there were no fishery in an area, there would be no protection. Now, that would assume that this is how we would be administering the new act, and that's not necessarily the case. If there is a licence that covers that area, then that is a possible fishery. Therefore, I think the basic premise of the paper was perhaps not based on where we're going.

I'll turn it over to Kevin.

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

Thank you. You've summarized it well, David.

The challenge is that without our definitions that we now have out in the public domain on our website, there were some assumptions because we're now saying that we're protecting fisheries. If you define exactly where fishing takes place, that's one thing. The reality, as David said, is that if you look at the Ontario regulations, the Manitoba regulations, the Saskatchewan regulations, etc., they say that all areas are licensed for fishing and all areas require a licence to be able to fish. Therefore, in terms of where there is a fishery, that's basically what we will be using.

Now, if you look—

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

May I just interrupt here, as my time is short.

They make the claim that if humans don't fish in a given place, then the habitat isn't protected there. Is that a wrong assumption?

[Kevin Stringer]

No, it's not. It's basically saying that if an area is licensed for fishing, and that's the law that we have to follow, then we're covering it.

Our website does note where the exceptions are and it talks about, not in exactly these words, farmers' fields, ditches, man-made ponds, and those types of things as the areas that are not covered.

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

Okay.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kamp.

Mr. Chisholm.

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

I'm pleased you're back before the committee. I think we continue to benefit from having a dialogue with officials from the department. There is a lot going on, and we appreciate the opportunity to engage with you and try to get a better sense of what the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is doing.

I want to cover a few different areas. These might be quick questions for you.

First, Mr. Grégoire, what is the expected delivery date for the new icebreaker?

[Marc Grégoire, Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

The polar icebreaker?

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

Yes.

[Marc Grégoire]

It has been delayed. The joint supply ship of DND will be built first. We're now expecting to have it in 2021-22.

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

Does that delay affect the ability to deliver that icebreaker under the budget that was granted?

[Marc Grégoire]

This new polar icebreaker is to replace the current Louis S. St-Laurent, which is the flagship of the Canadian Coast Guard fleet.

The Louis S. St-Laurent is in pretty good shape, so the government has set aside an amount of money sufficient to extend the life of the Louis S. St-Laurent. We were to retire it in 2017, but because of the JSS going first in the shipyard, we're going to use the money to extend the life of the Louis S. St-Laurent, which will be good to about 2024.

Are we losing capacity? No. We'll be able to continue to use the Louis S. St. Laurent in the Arctic and to do the necessary work outside of the key seasons.

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

My question was for the replacement vessel for the Louis S. St-Laurent. One of the problems that has come up repeatedly with procurement issues is that the government announces that they're going to build this ship or whatever for a particular delivery date, they set a budget, and then, because of delays, they have to scale back what's eventually going to end up being built.

I guess that's my question to you.

[Marc Grégoire]

Okay.

No, we won't scale it back. We haven't changed the operational requirement for the vessel at all. In fact, we are just about finishing now the design of the polar icebreaker. The delivery date will not affect the scope of the work to be done.

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

What is the status of the new coast guard helicopters?

[Marc Grégoire]

With regard to the coast guard helicopters, we have received money in budget 2012 to replace the whole fleet of helicopters, up to 24 helicopters.

We have grouped them into three groups of helicopters. The first one is the light helicopter to basically replace the light helicopter we have now. The second one is the medium helicopter. The third one is two helicopters to go on the polar icebreaker.

We are just about ready to issue the request for proposal for the medium helicopter. We're finalizing that now. Hopefully, early in the new year we'll publish the request for proposal.

On the light helicopter, we went through the route of a request for proposal already. We have received a compliant proposal, but another company that has not set forth a bid has taken us to court. It is complaining about the requirements we had established, so pending the outcome of that court case, we have put on ice the next steps, if you want, for the light helicopters.

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

How long do you project the delay is going to be?

[Marc Grégoire]

I hope it's going to be short. We're going through the legal process now, so all the parties have done their affidavits, and the rest is in the court.

I understand that all the parties, the company that is suing us and the others, wish for an early outcome. Everybody is pushing the legal system, the judge basically, to have an early judgment. Whether it is going to take one month from now or three months, I couldn't tell. It's out of our hands entirely. Hopefully, it won't be too long because the coast guard is anxious to acquire those new helicopters.

We have now the oldest fleet of 105s in the world. We lost one recently, a CG364, as we mentioned two weeks ago, so we're rather anxious to proceed with the acquisition. We're buying off the shelf, basically. The only thing we're asking the manufacturer to do is to paint it red and white. That's all. There are no specific requirements to the acquisition at all. They are off-the-shelf helicopters. The colour is not political.

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

I wanted to go to Mr. Stringer regarding the transboundary watershed for northern British Columbia and Alaska.

There have been some serious concerns raised mainly out of Alaska, but it does affect the whole question of the mining projects there and proposed for there and the cumulative impact on the environment of some of those major rivers. I'm wondering if DFO has taken a look at this, and whether the IJC is involved.