Evidence of meeting #89 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was funding.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Again, we made a firm commitment in the election campaign. People should not be surprised that we proceeded to implement the formal commitments we made in the election platform. That's what my colleague, the Minister of Transport, has done.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to the Minister and departmental officials for being with us this morning.
The supplementary estimates (C) 2017-18 request $488,563 in new funding for the fisheries and aquaculture clean technology adoption program, which provides funding to assist Canada's fisheries and aquaculture industries to improve their environmental performance.
As the minister knows, the best way to improve the environmental performance of fish farms is to get them out of the water and onto land. The Namgis First Nation is going to court this week, seeking a judicial review of Fisheries and Oceans Canada policy that doesn't mandate testing for piscine orthoreovirus before the scheduled transfer of Atlantic smolts to Marine Harvest's open net salmon farm in the Namgis territory, and an injunction preventing the minister from issuing a licence permitting the transfer of the smolts.
Chief Don Svanvik states:
We have made every attempt to engage Canada in good faith on their PRV policy and the transfer of Atlantic salmon into our territory, but it refused to consult with us. Namgis has no other option to protect wild salmon, our title and rights and ultimately who we are as people but to ask the Court to intervene to prevent the serious, irreversible harm being visited upon us by Canada and Marine Harvest.
Minister, will any of the allocated money be used to help transition farms out of first nation territories and onto land?
Moreover, when it comes to RAS, the train is leaving the station, and B.C. is not on it, and Canada is not on it. We have no strategy. Land-based closed containment aquaculture represents an opportunity for Canada, and B.C. in particular, to play a leading role in an emerging market. However, the opportunity is highly time sensitive.
Several commercial scale Atlantic salmon land-based closed containment projects are already under way. The U.S. has six facilities in development, which will produce more than 200,000 tonnes. Other countries are following its lead: Norway, Scotland, Denmark, Poland, South Africa, Switzerland, China, and France. Here in Canada we have three facilities: Kuterra, Canaqua, and Sustainable Blue. Between the three facilities, they're producing almost 1,000 tonnes. The U.S. plans to produce 20 times that.
B.C. is uniquely positioned to take advantage of the trend toward safe closed containment. The growth path for this industry could be greatly accelerated if appropriate incentives were put in place and regulations.
I'll leave it at that, and ask for your comments, Minister.
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Fin, you've covered a number of significant areas. I'll offer some quick comments, and the deputy may have some specific answers to the more precise questions around funding opportunities.
With respect to the Namgis, we have obviously taken note of the court action. You'll understand that we cannot and should not comment on the specific elements of a court case. I have had an opportunity in previous visits to British Columbia to meet with the Namgis leadership, so I understand this personally, and senior officials from the department are in regular contact with them. Obviously, I understand their sense of frustration. However, the assertion that we do not and have not consulted with the Namgis, I don't think is necessarily representative, but—
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
I met with them on a visit to British Columbia last year. I can get you the exact date. We've had ongoing discussions with the Namgis.
With respect to the broader issue around aquaculture, Fin, you and I have talked about this. Our parliamentary secretary and other colleagues from British Columbia have spoken to me about it a number of times as well. I know that Terry has visited the Kuterra facility, and has worked with our department in his capacity as a parliamentary secretary to identify potential opportunities for some of that funding around innovation and testing, and whether that technology for closed containment land-based aquaculture can in fact be used much more broadly, from an economic and environmental sustainability perspective.
As to your specific question about whether the fisheries and aquaculture clean technology adoption program might be a source of funding, I would certainly be open to an application to that fund that would advance that discussion. I don't disagree at all, Fin, with your analysis of the potential of land-based aquaculture and the importance of British Columbia not ending up behind the parade of other jurisdictions that in fact have gone further.
That's a modest amount of money. That fund is not a huge amount of money. My colleague, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, may have potentially other funding sources. I've had a conversation with him about that, and I know that our parliamentary secretary has as well.
Perhaps the deputy has a specific thing she wants to add.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Can I just jump in? I have one minute left, so I'd appreciate your response, and I have one other quick question I wanted to get in on a different topic. It's with regard to the CEDP and the PIP, the salmonid enhancement program. These are the community economic development and the public involvement programs.
I've been led to believe that under the CEDP there have been no program increases since the early nineties, and no wage increases, no capital allocation, no upgrading for aging hatcheries, no equipment replacement, no training plans. Twelve first nations' hatcheries have closed due to program reductions. Annual contracting meetings in Vancouver have been eliminated. There have been no funds to address inflation at 14% since the early nineties. The contracts used to negotiate each year now are allocations. Twelve CEDP programs have been closed due to budget reductions. On the public involvement program side, there have been no program increases since the nineties. For every DFO dollar contributed, communities provide 10 times more through volunteer labour, operational materials, vehicle use, and business donations, and the PIP groups involved are all in salmon recovery activities, fish production, habitat restoration, education, and classroom incubation. These groups are dealing with inflation, like CEDP, and it's difficult for them to recruit new people due to budget concerns. In addition to the costs of inflation and other concerns, infrastructure hatchery—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Mr. Donnelly, your time is up. I'm going to have to end it right there.
NDP
NDP
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Sure. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Fin, I'd be happy to look into what certainly looks like a dire picture that you've painted of that program. I know the importance of the salmonid enhancement program and the community economic development program. I have heard every time I've been to British Columbia, but also from my colleagues from that province, about the enormously successful work the program has done.
If the funding has eroded—and I certainly don't disagree with the numbers or circumstance you described—I'd be happy to look into it. We can confirm your specific questions. We will be happy to get back to you with the exact details of those programs. I'd also be happy to look with the department at ways we could in fact improve the funding, because if we're leveraging $10 for every dollar that we put in, imagine the benefits that we could potentially get if we put in $1.25. I'd be happy to look at how we could perhaps, over time, improve that, and I can get you the exact figures with respect to the financing.
Liberal
Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for being here today.
I have three quick questions.
The first is about the $250 million for small craft harbours. How will it be determined where that money is allocated?
That's one. I'm going to go through all three. It might be easier that way.
Secondly, with regard to abandoned vessels—and Mr. Hutchinson maybe can answer this for me—I know that we've had the program on the west coast for the smaller boats. I'm interested particularly in larger vessels and their removal. As you are aware, we have a few on the east coast. Of course, it's great that we're doing some work with the Manolis L and the Kathryn Spirit, but there are others. I'd like to know what the process is for removal of those vessels.
Thirdly, one of the things I hear a lot about now is enforcement, and the cuts that have been made to DFO previously with regard to enforcement and how these are affecting the local fishery. I'm just wondering if there's any movement to increase the number of enforcement officers on the ground.
Liberal
Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Exactly.
When you have a long coastline that needs to be protected by fishery officers, and you have one boat that takes in from Shelburne to Yarmouth, it's pretty hard to get to a problem.
If someone could address those three concerns, I would appreciate it. Thank you.
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Thank you, Bernadette. I'll take a crack at the first and third questions, and ask the commissioner to respond on the removal of larger vessels.
On the $250 million, I want to thank you publicly for your help in securing that funding, Bernadette, with respect to small craft harbours. As you know, the department has a normal, existing program. It's a series of points allocated, and the normal A-base program of small craft harbours puts out about $100 million a year. That's woefully inadequate compared to the need.
That program will continue to operate with the priorities that are established—often in multi-year capital plans, and so on. Some of this funding will go to some divestiture projects. I think the budget mentioned four specific projects; they are not all divestiture projects, but were used in the budget as examples in different parts of the country of specific projects that would receive funding.
There's no doubt that some provinces and communities have asked us about divestiture, such that we invest what we need to, to get their wharves or their particular harbours up to a standard where a province or a municipality could take them over. To be honest, I don't think we have an exact proportion yet of what money will be used for divestiture. Obviously, we will use a significant portion of this money to complement the urgent requirement that had fallen off the table from the existing program. In your constituency it's some of the most lucrative and economically important fishing grounds in the whole country.
With you, I visited a number of harbours in your riding that are perfect examples of deferred maintenance. If you think of the economic impact of these harbours and the jobs they facilitate and the importance to the economy of these coastal communities, my hope is that over the next two years we can catch up on a great number of these projects that had been deferred.
We'd be happy to work with your office and others to get your priorities, and I say this as well to other colleagues who have small craft harbours in their ridings. We are wide open to receiving your views on priorities and we'll work with you to ensure that this new funding can meet some of those objectives.
On enforcement, you're absolutely right. One of the challenges I heard from Newfoundland to Bella Bella, British Columbia, was the importance of having more fishery officers, conservation and protection officers, habitat protection officers, but particularly fishery officers, C and P officers, on the wharves, on the water. I visited small detachments where there used to be five or six people and now they're down to three, but it takes two to patrol safely. You can imagine that with three in a particular detachment, you've massively reduced their ability to enforce the Fisheries Act. Their presence is a deterrent to those who perhaps might not be inclined to follow the law. It's also a safety aspect in many communities. These people are first responders.
In Bella Bella last week I met two fishery officers who are in an isolated detachment there. They are, in many cases, the only federal presence along that part of the coast. I chatted with them about some of the challenges in recruiting and maintaining their staffing levels. We will be increasing by at least 70, or I hope more, permanent positions of fishery officers across the country. Help is on the way for those working in detachments now. The money that we got—almost $300 million—with the new fisheries act that we're proposing, will be a good first start, but I'll continue to try to rebuild that capacity.
Before we run out of time, I'll let the commissioner respond as well. We know the importance of the Farley Mowat. That left. You and I saw that together, Bernadette.
Liberal
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
That's right, and there are other examples across the country. Your riding is a good one, but perhaps, Jeff, you could provide details or some insight into our plan for some of the larger vessels.
Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I'd be very happy to, Minister.
As people around this table know, Bill C-64 has now reached third reading stage. That bill forms part of a larger plan that fundamentally changes the situation around vessels of concern, primarily by creating liability for abandonment of vessels, which has never existed in the past, but also by squarely positioning that legislation in a risk-based approach. That's the segue to the answer to your question, Ms. Jordan.
Our approach to those larger vessels is risk-based. You've already noted that we're taking action on some of the larger vessels that pose a more immediate risk, like the Kathryn Spirit and the Manolis L. We expect, as announced in January, a long-term plan for the Manolis L will be out this year. Kathryn Spirit is already being dismantled, or “broken” as we say.
As for the other large vessels, we have ongoing technical assessments scheduled for many of them. For Corfu Island, for example, the technical assessment is ongoing. The order in which those will happen are risk-based. For example, we'll be undertaking technical assessments of the Matterhorn and the Petrel this year. We have Cormorant down for next year.
As we're able to get to vessels, we get to them, and that generally then leads to a funding decision. Where we are dealing with the situation with a smaller amount, say, in the hundreds of thousands, we'll generally take that out of our environmental response program. Where you're into the territory of, say, a Kathryn Spirit, which is over $10 million, almost in the tens of millions of dollars, then a larger funding decision is required because we don't have the program dollars.
Liberal
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There are two key questions I want to get to, and if there's time remaining, if we can keep our responses reasonable, I'd like to pass the remaining time to Mr. Miller.
Minister, thank you for being here. I have a question regarding the glaring absence of any funding plans in the estimates for preventing the spread of aquatic invasive species, or AIS, particularly in my home province of British Columbia. The Okanagan Basin Water Board in Kelowna found that the introduction of invasive mussels into the Okanagan region alone would cost an estimated $43 million annually in mitigation and infrastructure maintenance. DFO's own evaluation of its fisheries protection program states that “the economic and environmental damage that some AIS have caused and can cause far outweighs the cost of prevention”.
Last year, MP Albas and I wrote you regarding the need for federal support for AIS prevention in B.C., and your response in October highlighted the $43.8 million proposed in the 2017 budget for preventing and eradicating AIS. DFO's own evaluation of the fisheries protection program states that aquatic invasive species component is currently restricted from “achieving an impact beyond the Great Lakes”. I am concerned if western Canada and the territories will see any of the funding you mentioned.
In your response to our letter, you wrote that “In British Columbia, there will be new DFO resources to develop, coordinate, and implement regional aquatic invasive species activities.”
Minister, as the 2018 boating and fishing season approaches, what new DFO resources will be provided to British Columbia to help prevent the introduction of zebra and quagga mussels?
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
In fact, I have talked with our colleagues from British Columbia on that specific issue as recently as yesterday. As you know, there was a small increase in the aquatic invasive species capacity of the department. It was only $7.2 million nationally. We obviously would have, and the need is.... I agree with your assessment that the potential economic impact of these zebra mussels on infrastructure, power systems, and hydro systems is devastating.
I totally acknowledge what you said about the cost consequences of not doing everything we can. The Government of British Columbia, I noted, has and is making some investments. My hope is to work with them to complement their investments to use the small amount of money—
Conservative
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
As I said, we have $7.2 million nationally that we haven't yet allocated.