Fisheries Committee on March 9th, 2017

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

—related to the oceans protection plan, work with first nations, the Yukon River chinook, and the work with the provincial government on the Water Sustainability Act.

Will you commit to an investment of $30 million in the Pacific salmon endowment fund?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

There are a number of questions, and they're very good questions, Mr. Chair.

I have met with representatives of the Pacific Salmon Foundation. I share your view that they do great work. This is a group of remarkable Canadians—and partners, in fact, from other countries—who contribute in a phenomenal way.

I find it inspiring when they come and ask us to raise a user fee. Their conservation stamp is an inspirational or a very creative and positive instrument that has, for a very modest amount of money, done a lot of great work.

I personally would love to be able to find a way to raise it to $10. It is more complicated than that, because it's caught in things like the User Fees Act, which was passed in a previous Parliament. There are issues around federal government revenues and the consolidated revenue fund.

Again, I'm not trying to be evasive at all, Fin. I totally get and share the benefit of that, but I am working with my colleagues and groups like the Treasury Board to find the best way to do it. It's not a simple yes or no. If it was, the simple answer would have been yes. I hope that we can quickly get to that place where the answer is yes. It will be a convoluted process, but I think we'll quickly get to an area where we all can—

Mr. Chair, I see your light is on. I'm leaving on the table a pile of questions that Finn had, so I'm in your hands how you want me to do this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Unfortunately, due to the Standing Orders, you're just going to have to leave them there for now, and perhaps work them in at some point later on. I've been rather generous thus far on the first round of questioning.

You have to leave here in about 30 minutes, so I'm going to say to my colleagues that we're going to have to be a little bit more strict on the timing.

Go ahead, Ms. Jordan, for seven minutes.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I will be sharing my time with Mr. Finnigan as well.

I have one question and one comment.

First of all, Minister and officials, thank you very much for appearing today.

I'm particularly happy to see the Kathryn Spirit and the Manolis L rather interestingly worked in there. As you know, I have an interest and passion in what's going to happen with abandoned and derelict vessels. I did see that it's been included in the oceans protection plan.

Can you tell me how much funding will be allocated for addressing the issues of abandoned and derelict vessels, when it's going to be rolled out, and when we can get rid of the Farley Mowat?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I had the experience of seeing the Farley Mowat in your community with you last summer. If you ever need a reminder of why this is a problem in so many communities, that is one of the gruesome ones that Shelburne is facing.

I share and understand your passion and I salute your work in Parliament on this issue. I know my colleague, the Minister of Transport, shares my view that your interventions and your work have been hugely constructive. They, frankly, convinced us, in the oceans protection plan that the Prime Minister announced last fall, to really try and up our game with respect to this scourge that affects so many communities and represents such an environmental and in some cases navigational concern.

The oceans protection plan will allocate some funding. We have not yet had the actual Treasury Board approval for the specific amounts of money. Once that is completed—and it's coming soon; it's not months way—we'll be in a position to offer much more precise information. Suffice to say that we will be taking our responsibility within the funding that we have to deal with the most critical issues.

More importantly, and perhaps in terms of looking ahead, Minister Garneau and I will be looking at legislative changes. If we all say and believe the polluter pays principle is fundamental to many of these conversations, it does seem strange that you can't abandon your car on a four-lane highway in New Brunswick, take the licence plates off, and just say, “Look, I don't need that car anymore” or “It doesn't have any value and it's too expensive to tow it”, and just ditch it on some shoulder on a highway, yet people get away with doing that in rivers, lakes, and marine ecosystems to the extent they do.

It's a global problem, but we think the owners of these vessels have to be held to account and have to pay the bill. Canadian taxpayers can't fund every single one of these, which in many cases have been existing for decades. This is a horrible problem that we have arrived at after many years of abusive practices by the owners of these vessels.

We're going to be doing two things. We're going to be dealing with the most urgent ones the best way we can, recognizing that public funds can be part of that solution. I'd be happy to provide details as we have them. More importantly, we're looking at changing both the legislation and the authority of Transport Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard to hold people to account at the time these horrible incidents are created, and not 10, 20, or 30 years out, when we say, “Oh, geez, that's a problem, isn't it?” Taxpayers are then on the hook for a huge amount of money. That is unsustainable.

Jeff, do you want to add something specific on that point?

[Jeffery Hutchinson, Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members.

I'll pause for a moment and thank you for the very warm welcome earlier this morning and tell you that it is an honour to be in this position.

To what the minister has said, I would simply add the point that the work to move that legislative piece forward is ongoing. I wouldn't want anyone to leave the room thinking that's a future piece of work. We have people working on it. We're sitting at the table with justice drafters as we speak.

Where issues come up, I get myself involved personally to resolve them. We're moving this expeditiously. If we face a challenge in doing it, it's to ensure that we have comprehensive coverage and that we're ambitious in the scope rather than restrained because, as the minister has already referred to, it's a national problem, and it's an international problem. We want to have the tool set that will allow us to deal with it most effectively when that legislation is passed.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I'm going to make a quick comment, and then I'm going to pass it to Pat.

Small craft harbours are extremely important in my riding. There was a great investment last year. I hope that you recognize that these harbours are economic drivers in small communities and that you will continue to fund small craft harbours and wharfs.

That's my comment on small craft harbours, but I am going to turn it over to Mr. Finnigan.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Thank you, Bernadette.

Thank you again, Mr. Minister.

Minister, having you here, I can't pass up the opportunity to discuss the Atlantic salmon issue, particularly as it relates to my region, Miramichi. The industry there is in crisis; it is really struggling. Over the past two years, fish harvesters have been subject to catch and release measures, and many in my community are finding that the measures have not had the desired effects, especially when it comes to the daily limit of one grilse.

I have often heard people say that, if more energy were spent on enforcing the rules and making sure enough officers were monitoring the rivers, we would see the same benefits. I know your management plan, in connection with first nations and all stakeholders, is on its way. Could you tell us a bit more about your vision for Atlantic salmon going forward?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Finnigan. I wholeheartedly share Ms. Jordan's concerns when it comes to the large investment in harbour infrastructure. We are going to continue making those investments a top priority. I want to make that clear.

On the Atlantic salmon issue, Mr. Finnigan, I appreciate how important the sector is economically and culturally in a region like yours, along the Miramichi River. I also realize the value the Government of New Brunswick places on the economic activity generated by the industry. As you are well aware, a scientific assessment of the 2016 stocks is under way. We are eagerly awaiting that science advisory report. Our discussions with indigenous communities, as well as individual and group stakeholders, are ongoing. The issue is of particular concern to the province of New Brunswick.

I must commend you, Mr. Finnigan, for your—quite frankly—relentless efforts to maximize the opportunities afforded by this species, which is so important to our province.

I would also welcome any suggestions from my fellow members at the table. We have not yet finalized our management plan for 2017, so we would be delighted to receive any proposals you or your colleagues might have, Mr. Finnigan. We realize how important this resource is, as evidenced by our upcoming investment. In the next few days, I will be making announcements about possible investments to give the Atlantic fishery, the Atlantic salmon fishery, an economic boost. I am hopeful that the recreational fishery will be an important part of that discussion. We have some good news coming and some good years ahead. That is our hope, and we are working on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you very much, Minister. That will have to be it for now.

Mr. Sopuck, you have five minutes.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you.

Regarding the Fisheries Act review that we did, I would like to make a couple of comments. Manitoba Hydro was one of our witnesses. They are proponents in projects all the time and deal with the act on a regular basis. They were very clear in their testimony when they said that evidence for loss protections is not apparent. A proponent who dealt with the old act and the new act, then, was very clear that they were still rigorously required to protect fish habitat.

As well, the 2009 report of the commissioner of environment and sustainable development, which looked at the work the DFO did in habitat protection under the old Fisheries Act, concluded that DFO could not demonstrate that it adequately protected fish habitat and, by extension, the fisheries.

One question we asked many of our witnesses was whether they could prove any damage to the fish populations as a result of the changes that were made to the act in 2012, and not a single person could provide any quantitative estimates, other than mere opinions.

Having said that, the exercise of reviewing the act was a very positive one for me and for all of us on this side. I think we worked well together with all parties. We had very intense discussions and I think came up with a report that you will find quite useful.

I'm not expecting you to make any comments on the recommendations, because I know it's under review, but I want to emphasize that one area the committee was fairly strong about was the protections for farmers, agriculturalists, and rural municipalities.

I don't have to tell you, minister, what it was like under the old act: the so-called “fish cops” descending on prairie communities and looking at drainage ditches and so on. We would hope that your department and you will take those recommendations on dealing with the rural municipalities and farm communities extremely seriously, and I'm sure you will.

One of our recommendations—we also made recommendation 15—was that there be a widely representative advisory board set up to advise DFO on the implementation of the Fisheries Act.

There is a precedent for this, minister, as you know, under the Species at Risk Act: there is an advisory board. In fact, the individuals who are on that Species at Risk Act advisory board would be ideal for an advisory board under the new Fisheries Act.

I would like to ask a question, though, about the research science program. One of the recommendations we made in the Atlantic salmon report, which was a unanimous report and one that all of us are very proud of, was that a number of these new scientists be assigned solely to the management and conservation of Atlantic salmon.

Would that be a possibility? We declined to put a number down, but we would like to see a sufficient cadre of scientists dedicated full time to the Atlantic salmon resource. Would it be a possibility?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Sopuck.

You asked a number of questions. You went from the Fisheries Act to salmon science. Let me try to cover it briefly. With respect to the salmon science, Trevor or others might add some precision.

I hear what you're saying. We've had this conversation at this table before. I think you and I have, in many cases, more of a common understanding than perhaps people would imagine.

We don't see restoring loss protections in the Fisheries Act as the best instrument to cancel country and western music shows. There may be other reasons to cancel country and western music festivals, but the Fisheries Act isn't the best one.

We've all heard the horror stories, but some of them may be fake news and some may not be. It doesn't really matter, other than that it reminds us to be conscious that small rural farming communities, including some that I represent in my own riding, will not want to see what is a legitimate exercise that we committed to Canadians in the election to undertake.... We made a precise commitment in the campaign that we would restore these loss protections, so we will do that, with your help and with the help of Parliament, obviously. In no way is it intended to traumatize people who are conducting otherwise responsible and sustainable agriculture or rural community development.

However, we do believe—and this is where we may differ—that the changes made some time ago had a negative impact or an unfortunate impact. I don't want to characterize it, because it will then engage a conversation between us. One reason we think it was hard to get quantitative analysis is that there had been a significant reduction in scientific assets, so we think the conversation around what the impact in fact is will be a lot better if we have transparent, open, robust, and globally credible scientific evidence.

That's a perfect bridge to your specific question around Atlantic salmon. I share your view that this has to be a priority, and I salute the work your committee did on it. It's critically important for a number of communities.

You asked a specific question about a specific, dedicated science asset. You also recognized that we won't respond at a committee on estimates to a report that we will be thoroughly and properly responding to in the parliamentary process.

Trevor may want to add a specific comment on the scientific—

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

You've answered my question. You're open to the idea of dedicated science.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Again, I want to be careful. Dedicated? There may be a leading global expert on this particular issue working at a facility in my own province of New Brunswick—the Huntsman Marine Science Centre in St. Andrews, New Brunswick—but that person may also have an expertise that could be valuable in looking at an aquaculture project or something. I wouldn't want that person to have five minutes of idle time because he or she was solely allowed to focus on Atlantic salmon. They may have a remarkable piece of insight into Atlantic halibut.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

That's a fair comment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Sopuck. I have to end it right there. I'm having to be a bit more strict now.

Now, of course, it's Mr. Hardie, for five minutes, please.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to everybody. It's nice to see the west coast representative in the person of your new parliamentary secretary.

On the west coast there are actually good stories to tell about the ocean protection plan. The more we unbundle it, the more people seem to agree that it's going in the right direction.

As well, we can't forget the impact of reopening the Kitsilano coast guard base. Training those community-based first responders is a huge value to the west coast, and I think that has to be recognized.

I want to get back to giving you, Mr. Minister, an opportunity to finish the answer you started briefly to Mr. Donnelly's question. Then I want to talk about MCTS for a minute as well.

To address the issue of aquaculture, one reason these questions keep coming up—to my mind, anyway—is what I consider the troubling lack of transparency from that industry. They do not work well with their critics, the advocates. They hide information, it seems.

On the immediate issue of the HSMI disease, although Mr. Swerdfager gave some information on it, did you want to complete your thought on it first?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ken, also, for the question.

One of the challenges we're having in getting a broader consensus around the co-existence of aquaculture with wild fish stocks is exactly what you identified. We can find anecdotal examples of particular operators who perhaps were seen to have or were believed to have not been transparent or open, or there's a claim that some particular group or person did something and what the facts were never flushed out publicly. The lack of transparency or the resistence to transparency becomes a proof point for those who assert other particular circumstances.

I share your view: we can work with them. I have instructed our department to be absolutely rigorous in enforcing and applying the rules and the regulations and the conditions of these licences, obviously, but also in compelling those operators to be open and transparent with Canadians around these issues. I share your view.

Terry wanted to add something with respect to the aquaculture piece, Mr. Chair, so if you don't mind, Ken, I'd ask Terry to add a particular piece. Then we can get back to MCTS, if we're able.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Hello, committee. It's a pleasure to be here in my new role, and certainly, Ken, I won't take too much of your time away from the minister.

I would just like to say that meeting with each of you personally has been fantastic, and not only in my legislative role in supporting the minister. I have a personal mantra, which is that politics is for elections. I think there's a lot of good work that we can do together, and the Prime Minister and the minister as well have stated that one of the value points of my being in this role is to provide a west coast perspective.

I share a border with Fin, and we have similar constituencies and similar concerns. I'm taking my role very seriously. In B.C. it is obvious that this is a key issue that has many parties concerned. Already last week I visited the biology station where Dr. Miller works. I visited with representatives from the Wild Salmon Forever Foundation. In fact, I'm going back this week to visit a fish farm and to see it on the ground, and I'll be reporting all this back to the minister.

I'm glad to bring this west coast perspective, and certainly from our work in the Pacific caucus you know that the Pacific caucus is engaged in this as well.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Terry.

Now for MCTS.

There were 490 outages between August and November. There are discussions suggesting that one day MCTS could actually be like an air traffic control for marine traffic.

With that number of outages and the difficulties with the third party supplier responsible for about half of those outages, how are we doing? You know that we were not entirely happy with the decision to close Comox. I'm just wondering how satisfied you are with the state of that operation.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ken, I share your view of the importance Canadians place on marine communications and the critical role of the Coast Guard for the safety of Canadians and visitors to our waters. Not for one minute do I underestimate or fail to recognize the reliance that people have on this infrastructure, the importance of ensuring that the investments allow for redundancy systems, and the need for the latest technology that is accessible to people in a way such that they can use it safely, with the appropriate backup system in the event of outages. The oceans protection plan and the money that the Coast Guard will receive will allow us, I think, to up our game in a significant way and reassure people that those redundancies exist and that the modern technologies that can offer world-class best coverage will exist.

Jeff, the commissioner of the Coast Guard, may provide some precise answers.

Again, Mr. Chair, for any of these questions, if colleagues would like us to provide more and specific detail in written answers, we would be happy to come back on specific points with written precision, if that's the desire of members at any time, not only at the committee but at any other moment.

Jeff, do you want to add something?

[Jeffery Hutchinson]

I would. Thank you.

Within that number, as you know, you see that MCTS isn't a system but a system of systems. How satisfied I am, as the commissioner, with the progress we're making depends a little bit on a breakdown within that larger number. I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about.

For the technology that was consolidated, the trend line is moving in the right direction, and it's moving fairly quickly. The number of problems we had with the system last summer, when compared with the fall, has fallen by about 70%. I think that's the right direction. The folks I'm talking to through the management structure are telling me that we continue to deal with those problems. They're raised, they're put to the committee, the right escalation or right resolution is being brought to bear.

That said, MCTS is supported by a series of towers and also by other information systems. Within the OPP you'll recall that the Prime Minister announced a reduction in the number of blackouts. He was referring to some of the investments that can be put into the other parts of that system. When we're talking about towers or AIS—the way ships often communicate with each other—in a move from radio-based to satellite-based AIS, those systems are imperative if we're going to be on a world stage. Cutting-edge—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm sorry, Mr. Hutchinson. I have to cut you off right there.

We have time for one more question for the minister. We will continue after that with the officials, if that's the wish of the committee.

I'm seeing that it is the wish, so we'll carry on with this.

We'll go to Mr. Arnold for about five minutes.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm trying to keep you honest on your questioning time here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

You'll have more than that, then, probably.