Fisheries Committee on April 19th, 2016

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

Good.

[Hunter Tootoo, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

What we've done is to not only reopen the search and rescue. If you look at the English Bay incident, we had departmental officials sitting down with other stakeholders in the area, They knew we needed to find a way to enhance the services there.

We'd look at having it as a training centre. We've heard from first nations groups up and down the coast that they want to be involved. They're there asking for training and telling us they have the ability to be our first responders.

So we're not just reopening this. It's like enhancing it three times, so it's a great—

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

A coordination in Metro Vancouver is quite important too because you have so many different municipalities and jurisdictions there.

It didn't take long after our environment minister announced the go-ahead, or at least that a hurdle had been cleared by Woodfibre LNG, that I heard from some folks along Howe Sound who were concerned that some of the data that had been used in that decision was from DFO, from 1991. It was extremely old data, because that was simply the latest that you had. You can straighten that out if that's incorrect, but it does lead to a general question, sir. You're being asked to restore a lot here—habitat, protections, etc.— but I'm wondering if you actually have a strategy for restoring the DFO itself to an organization as it used to be, the source of accurate and objective science.

[Hunter Tootoo, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

As I said in my opening comments, our recent budget announcement of $197 million over five years starting this coming year is the single biggest investment in ocean science in a generation, and I think that shows we are committed to ensure that we have the resources we need to be able to do adequate science and to be able to make evidence-based, science-based decisions. As I said, I don't want to just bring it back to how it was. The Prime Minister always said better is always possible. I'm looking at ways to try to partner up. Everyone else does science, so why do we have to reinvent the wheel? Someone else is doing it; maybe we can find ways where we can partner up. We can have a partner, give them $20,000 towards a science project, and they can turn it into $100,000 worth of science, so we get more bang for our buck, and again, a broader base of science in order to make decisions from.

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

One more brief question, then. With respect to the Cohen commission, as the only Liberal on this committee west of Ontario, it is something that I'll be asked to follow fairly closely. I notice in the mandate letter you're charged with acting on the Cohen commission, which is, to me, a little different from implementing it, implementing those recommendations. Does that suggest, then, that there are doors open to varying the direction that Justice Cohen was trying to set?

[Hunter Tootoo, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Well, I don't blame you for bringing that up, and I expect you to. To me, that's your job, and we have to respect that. I think we're committed to act on the recommendations of the Cohen commission, on restoring the sockeye salmon stocks on the Fraser River. I actually had a meeting with Justice Cohen when I was in B.C. before Christmas. It was supposed to be an hour, and I think it went on for about an hour and a half. He was a very interesting individual to sit down and talk to. I'm hoping to be out there again soon, at which time I hope to be able to provide detailed information on implementation and progress to date, and to announce a way forward on outstanding recommendations.

I think, as of now, about 31 of the recommendations have been implemented in whole or in part, so I'm looking forward to more coming in the near future.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay, thank you, Minister.

Mr. Barlow, for five minutes, please.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I want to thank my colleague Mr. Sopuck for letting me sub in today.

Minister, thanks very much for being here.

My question is in a bit of a different direction. I just want to put out a comparison here. As of now, about 740,000 barrels of oil a day are being tanked into eastern Canada, the United States, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, so about 3,800 to 3,900 tankers per year. That's about $17 billion leaving the Canadian economy, going to foreign oil producers. That would cover about half of our federal deficit. By comparison, the west coast has about 246 tankers per year, about 1.3% of the total commercial vessels going into the west coast.

The Liberal government doesn't seem to have much of an issue with the tanker traffic off the east coast, which is 16 times higher that the tanker traffic off the west coast. I'd like to ask, why is it okay for Atlantic Canada and Quebec to have crude oil off their waters, but you have a unilateral tanker ban that is going to be blocking the Northern Gateway, and is going to be impacting jobs in B.C., Saskatchewan, and Alberta? Why such a difference of attitude between the west coast tanker traffic and the east coast tanker traffic?

[Hunter Tootoo, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

You're talking about the tanker ban on the west coast, and that falls under the Minister of Transportation.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

It is in your mandate letter to follow through on this.

[Hunter Tootoo, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

He's the lead minister on that. Our officials have been in ongoing discussions, and I'm sure he's going to be bringing something forward for us to have a look at.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

If the Minister for Transport is the lead, I can understand that. It does say in your mandate letter that you will work with the Minister of Transport. What is your view, or what would be your input on this? Is this something you are supporting? Is this something you want to have a more lengthy discussion about?

[Hunter Tootoo, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

My own view on it is irrelevant, because I'm not here as an individual. I'm here as a minister of the Crown. As you're probably aware, there are diverse views on the moratorium, and I'm interested in finding a way forward with Minister Garneau that balances the need. As we heard, B.C. residents are all about the environment, but also look at ways we can grow our economy. We'll be looking at finding that balance.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

If you don't mind, I'm going to jump in.

You talked about growing our economy. The best way to grow our economy is with jobs, and this is going to impact a significant number of jobs in three provinces. In your mandate letter it says you'll work with the Minister of Transport and Natural Resources, with this group of ministers, and you're saying you're not the lead minister. What is going to be your input in this, if anything?

[Hunter Tootoo, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

My understanding is that our officials are sitting down and looking at ways to move forward, where to go, and what we're going to do with it. When they come up with something for us to have a look at, then I'll be having a look at it.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

My concern with this, Minister, is that Northern Gateway was approved. An arbitrary tanker ban is put in, and it's going to block that pipeline. Energy east gets approved by the NEB and goes through. Are we going to have a tanker ban off New Brunswick? Is that the next step?

I hope you will be an active part of these discussions moving forward, as we know how important these things are.

Also, in your mandate letter, you were talking about how important it was for consultation, and I agree. I think that's extremely important. There are about 25 first nations along the route of Northern Gateway that have become equity partners in the pipeline. Were they part of the consultation process when the tanker traffic ban was put in? Do you know?

[Hunter Tootoo, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

I was not aware if they were, but I did meet with those individuals just within the last month, or month and a half.

We've said there will be consultations that take place. Everyone who has concerns will have an opportunity to voice those concerns. I think one of the things we've heard over and over again is that we want to ensure we have a process in place that Canadians have confidence in, through consultations and input from all stakeholders. We're going to be developing a plan that Canadians will have confidence in and be able to get our resources to market.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

Mr. Finnigan, you have the floor for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Minister, for being here today and showing us the plans ahead.

As you know, I'm from the riding of Miramichi—Grand Lake, where the Miramichi River is world famous for the Atlantic salmon. Recently you accepted the recommendation from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to continue the practice of catch and release as it was implemented for Atlantic salmon recreational fisheries in 2015. Could you explain to the committee how you came to this decision, specifically the scientific research that supports it, and also if you're willing to reassess this decision in the future?

[Hunter Tootoo, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Absolutely. Thank you.

The Atlantic salmon stocks have been steadily declining. I think there has been probably close to a 70% decline since 1971. In 2014, as I'm sure you're aware, some areas, such as the Miramichi River, had the lowest returns on record. Many of the salmon stocks have been assessed as being endangered.

Rebuilding these stocks will require a concerted effort from all stakeholders. Until the science shows us anything different, we'll continue with no retention of Atlantic salmon in the Gulf region. I'm hoping that, with our investment in science in this budget, we'll be able to gather more specific information in order to be able, hopefully, to reassess that decision in the future.

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

To continue that thought, some of my constituents are concerned that we don't have good, reliable data. I know that you will be investing $197 million over five years in scientific research and that some of it will go into the Margaree and the Restigouche and the Miramichi. Can you elaborate on what approach we'll have to getting better data so that we can make better informed decisions?

[Hunter Tootoo, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Over the coming months the department will be focusing on three main areas, one looking at increasing in-river monitoring of salmon returns on selected rivers, one doing more science on understanding survival at sea, and one working with the Atlantic salmon science community to contribute to effective salmon management and conservation.

I met with the anglers when I was out in New Brunswick. Everyone does science, and everyone wants to help to bring it back. We look forward to working with those groups to try to get the best information we can to move forward.

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

Thank you.

The Atlantic salmon was assessed as a special concern. Could you elaborate as to where...? Is the next step to name it a species at risk. Where are we in that scale? What does naming it a “species at risk” mean, if ever it were done, for the anglers on the Miramichi?

[Hunter Tootoo, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

You have stumped me on that one. I'll ask Trevor to respond to that, please.

[Trevor Swerdfager, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Oceans Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

The Atlantic salmon, as you say, is assessed in a number of different ways, depending on where it's found. Think of the Bay of Fundy; think of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. If we see a continued decline in any of the stocks that will move—depending on the way you look at it, sir—up the classification or down, but to a worse status as you move from “special concern” to “threatened” and ultimately to “endangered”.... Obviously we hope that's not the trend; the trends do not show that right now.

The reason species are designed as of “special concern” is that they require or demand or deserve special attention so that they're not just one among others. The efforts are targeted much more towards their conservation, return, and science, and so on.

We think, optimistically, that trends are holding; we do not at this point anticipate declines into threatened or endangered status. Obviously Mother Nature has her way, and we'll see, but right now the trends are fairly positive.