Gail Shea

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2009]

Madam Chair, yes, for the same reason. In all three areas of science, we have moved the amount of money that the Coast Guard would normally charge us for the services that we use it for in our science projects and we have moved that to the Coast Guard.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2009]

Madam Chair, the 2009-10 report on plans and priorities indicates that the total planned spending on science has decreased by $32.4 million. The most significant reason for the decrease is due to the transfer of funds to the Canadian Coast Guard for fleet operational readiness, which ensures that the Coast Guard has the means and the ability to respond to the on-water and marine related needs for science.

We simply have taken what we have paid the Coast Guard in the past for its cost of assisting us with the science and that has now gone into the Coast Guard's operational fund. Members will see that in several areas of the budget the science money has simply gone to the Coast Guard.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2009]

Madam Chair, I have said several times in the House that science is the basis for decisions in DFO. There is a lot of pressure for sciences as technologies change and new ways of doing science are discovered. There are new pressures to do science in a number of different areas so, of course, I think science is very important.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2009]

Madam Chair, I would just like to say that we do recognize that rationalization is an issue, particularly in areas around Northumberland Strait and in areas where catches are very low.

We are doing some work on this issue. We have supported lobster fishers in the past. We had done a small marketing campaign earlier in this season. We have responded to fishers by implementing a $500,000 capital gains exemption, which we then bumped up to $750,000.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2009]

Madam Chair, I have said several times tonight that we are in this crisis because of a downturn in the markets. Therefore, it makes sense to try to help the markets recover. That is why $10 million was put into lobster marketing, and we will support the lobster marketing council.

I am sure the hon. member knows that the fishing industry was a fractured industry and it did not come together as one eastern Canadian industry to promote itself. That is why we are supporting the lobster council, because we have to change the demand. We have the supply, but we have to increase the demand. That is how we are going to get back into a viable situation.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2009]

Madam Chair, I assume that the response went to the organization, because when this issue was first raised with me by the hon. member, my department did talk to several of the fishers in the area who are in charge of the fisheries organizations. They reviewed what had happened in the meetings on opening dates and found that the majority of the fishers wanted the opening dates that they had asked for, and that is what was set.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2009]

Madam Chair, as the hon. member would probably know, I have plenty of requests for meetings. I try to accommodate all that I can.

Actually I think this may be the group that I may be able to get to very soon, because I plan to be in Cape Breton for a function.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2009]

Madam Chair, we recognize that the bycatch quota has been overrun in the NAFO regulatory area. That will be addressed when we attend meetings this fall.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2009]

Madam Chair, what rationalization does is help to bring economic stability to an enterprise by either amassing more quota or having access to more fish.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2009]

Madam Chair, at DFO we take science very seriously. It is the basis of our resource management.

In 2007, the federal budget allocated $58 million over five years to DFO to address science gaps created by the court decision, the Larocque ruling.