FOPO Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 1, 2003

1530

The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.))

Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)

1535

1540

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance)

1545

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. John Cummins

1550

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

1555

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ)

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Robert Thibault

1600

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

The Chair

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.)

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

1605

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

1610

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. John Cummins

1615

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Robert Thibault

1620

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

1625

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.)

Mr. Robert Thibault

1630

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC)

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Robert Thibault

1635

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. John Cummins

1640

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

1645

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Robert Thibault

1650

The Chair

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.)

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Paul Steckle

1655

Mr. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Robert Thibault

1700

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

1705

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.)

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Bill Matthews

Mr. Robert Thibault

1710

Mr. Bill Matthews

Mr. Robert Thibault

1715

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Robert Thibault

1720

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Robert Thibault

The Chair

1725

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

1730

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Le président

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.)

Mr. Robert Thibault

1735

Mr. Georges Farrah

The Chair

Mr. Robert Thibault

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

NUMBER 031

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 1, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1530)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) and the order of reference from the House of Commons dated Wednesday, February 26, 2003, we're undertaking consideration of votes 1, 5, and 10 under Fisheries and Oceans in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004.

We're very pleased this afternoon to have appearing before us the Honourable Robert Thibault, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and officials who may or may not be sitting with him; one of them is, and that's Monsieur Jean-Claude Bouchard, associate deputy minister. Thank you for coming, Minister. We look forward to your remarks and to the answers you're going to give us to the questions.

Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, colleagues. It's a great pleasure to be here today.

[Translation]

Good afternoon, colleagues. It’s a great pleasure to join you here today.

[English]

Joining me are Jean-Claude Bouchard, as you said, associate deputy minister, Pat Chamut, Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries Management, Wendy Watson-Wright, ADM, Science, John Adams, Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard, and James Wheelhouse, ADM, Corporate Services. We have a new deputy minister, Mr. Larry Murray, who some of you might know; he was in Jean-Claude's job at one time and comes from Veterans Affairs in P.E.I. He's moving this week, so he couldn't be with you, but he has agreed to appear at your convenience.

To start out with, I'd like to thank you all for your ongoing commitment to Canada's fisheries and ocean sector. This committee's views and advice are well respected by myself and my department. We're currently in the process of responding to a number of your reports. I can assure you that we are taking these reports very seriously. If you have any questions on these or any other files, my officials and I would be pleased to address them in a few moments.

I know my officials appeared before you twice last month on the finer details of my department's main estimates for the coming year. Today I'd like to give you a somewhat broader picture of where my department is at and where we're trying to go. It's certainly no exaggeration to say DFO is at an important turning point. Our oceans and waterways are busier than ever. The management of our aquatic ecosystems is becoming more complex, and we're facing unprecedented demands for our services. At the same time, we have a number of new policy initiatives moving forward. The Atlantic fisheries policy review, Canada's oceans strategy, and coast guard modernization are just a few examples.

¹ (1535)

[Translation]

The recent federal budget was an important step forward in relieving some of the pressure.

The Canadian Coast Guard is receiving $47.3 million annually, which will be invested in the CCG’s fleet and shore-based infrastructure, and will help us to plan for the recapitalization of the fleet and shore-based infrastructure.

DFO’s Aboriginal Fisheries Program is receiving $12 million over two years, to be invested in a soon-to-be-announced programming initiative, which will involve close consultations with Aboriginal groups. The Budget also allocated $123 million over five years to be divided among several departments, to implement the Species at Risk Act.

DFO will be working with other departments on the distribution of this funding. This funding is in addition to the $90 million over three years and the $45 million annually in subsequent years announced in the 2000 Budget.

[English]

The budget also made reviewing programs and reallocating resources from lower to higher priorities an imperative. All departments, on a five-year cycle, will be expected to participate in a Treasury Board process to review their programs for efficiency, effectiveness, and relevance to Canadians. That's where DFO's departmental assessment and alignment project comes in.

Through the project, DFO is working with Treasury Board to closely examine its current resource situation and to assess departmental priorities and identify opportunities for improvement. My department intends to use that to better align departmental resources to provide services to Canadians in the most efficient way possible. It will mean making some difficult decisions along the way, but I'm confident that at the end of it we will be in a better position to deliver on our mandate and meet Canadians' expectations better than ever before. This close examination also provides an excellent opportunity for DFO to recommit itself to its overarching strategic direction, in other words, where we're heading in the future. I know there are a number of issues you'd like to be addressed today, so I'll examine some of these issues in the context of our overall departmental direction.

As Dr. Wheelhouse explained when he was here last month, DFO's work is geared towards meeting five strategic outcomes. These outcomes form the core of what Canadians can expect of DFO in the years ahead, and while the way we deliver these services may change over time, our commitment to delivering them will not.

The first outcome is to manage and protect Canada's fisheries resources. In my view, this will always be one of our core missions. As minister, my top priority in this area is conservation. Over the last few weeks we've released a number of management plans for key Atlantic stocks. While the decisions weren't always easy to make, particularly for Atlantic groundfish, they were all made for the right reasons. In every case the fish came first. That priority will not change on my watch. In fact, conservation is just one of a number of principles guiding the Atlantic fisheries policy review. As you know, the policy framework is nearly complete and will be released later this year.

Conservation is also a key priority underpinning our management of Pacific fisheries. I recently received a report on management of sockeye salmon that represented a consensus from an external steering committee. I was pleased to accept all 14 of their recommendations. I've asked my officials to begin implementing these recommendations now, as we prepare for the 2003 fishing season. In particular, the process underscored the need for a wild salmon policy, which will be in place by year's end.

[Translation]

The second outcome is to protect the marine and freshwater environments. As I indicated earlier, our oceans and freshwater have become extremely busy places. Beyond the fishery, we’re also seeing oil and gas development, eco-tourism, and a range of other activities.

Through the Oceans Act and Canada’s Ocean Strategy, DFO is working closely with an increasingly diverse range of stakeholders to help ensure our oceans are managed and protected in an integrated fashion. This range of activity also means increasing pressure to conserve and protect fish habitat. Over the coming year, we’ll be strengthening our Fish Habitat Management program through staff training and operational guideline development, streamlining the project review process, and seeking new and innovative partnership arrangements.

[English]

Our third strategic outcome is maritime safety. I know this committee is familiar with the important work undertaken by the Canadian Coast Guard. The funding provided in the recent budget will help us put this proud Canadian institution on a firm financial footing, begin the recapitalization of its fleet, and make the most of available navigation technology. My January announcement of $37.5 million in marine security funding for the coast guard over the next five years was further proof of the importance the Government of Canada accords this important organization and a recognition of the key role the Canadian Coast Guard can play in supporting marine security. As minister, my commitment to this organization remains strong. I recognize the role the coast guard plays not only in keeping our waters safe, but also in keeping products and vessels moving along Canada's marine highway.

Our fourth strategic outcome is maritime commerce and ocean development. All the activity we're seeing on our waters means Canada's fisheries and oceans sector is making an important contribution to Canadian life, and as a whole, this sector contributes billions to Canada's economy each year, but it also means we need to be careful about balancing all this activity. On one hand, we want to make room for new industries that can boost coastal economies, on the other hand, we need to ensure that our marine environment is protected.

Aquaculture is a good example of the balance that needs to be struck. The economic potential of this industry is too great to ignore. At the same time, we need to ensure that it doesn't come at the expense of our marine environment. That's why we have a comprehensive action plan in place to ensure that both goals are met. As the lead federal agency for this industry, DFO is working with our partners to give the acquaculture industry the tools it needs to expand and remain competitive, while ensuring that this sector's growth is environmentally sustainable.

¹ (1540)

[Translation]

Our fifth strategic outcome is to understand our oceans and aquatic resources. DFO is a science-based department. And the demands are changing rapidly. We’re seeing an escalation in demand for new and more specialized scientific knowledge. We’re faced with increased research costs, particularly in Canada’s North, which is developing at a rapid pace. And most challenging of all, our aquatic ecosystems are seeing some dramatic environmental changes. These sometimes unpredictable changes affect our fisheries management plans, and have a serious impact on our work in other areas.

We need to be ready to quickly adapt to these changes. With so many demands to provide accurate, timely science, our Science sector will continue to be under significant pressure to deliver the best possible science in a limited fiscal situation. Indeed, it’s become clear to all federal science-based departments that funding for research is extremely limited. But we can also meet the funding challenge by leveraging the wide network of aquatic science excellence Canada is well-renowned for.

Ensuring even closer collaboration with our partners in the future is the best way to do this. In recent years, we’ve made much progress in this regard. Last year, DFO was involved in more than 350 collaborative research projects. I truly believe that this cooperative approach is the way of the future for federal science.

[English]

Honourable members, delivering on these five outcomes for Canadians will form the core of my department's work in the months ahead. While DFO will continue finding new and innovative ways to deliver its services to Canadians effectively and affordably, you can rest assured that these outcomes will be met. As minister, I'm committed to ensuring that the department has the tools and the direction it needs to fulfil its responsibilities in the years to come.

I'm sure you have a number of questions and comments on the issues I've mentioned today, so without further ado, I'd like to thank you for this opportunity. My officials and I would be pleased to respond to any questions you might have.

Merci beaucoup.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister.

I'm sure everybody has a lot of questions, so I'm going to be very strict on the time.

We'll start with Mr. Cummins for 10 minutes.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the minister's comments and the fact that he's here today. I can assure him that the collegial atmosphere of the committee will allow him to clear the air on a variety of issues this afternoon.

I'd like to start off with a question that was raised at a committee meeting earlier today. The chairman thought it best asked here, and I'll do that. Earlier this year, Minister, you promised amendments to the Fisheries Act that would allow and provide for aboriginal communal fishing licences. We understood the changes to the act would be in place by summer, but it doesn't seem likely. Could you give us a progress report?

¹ (1545)

Mr. Robert Thibault: I can't give you a definite date. We've done the drafting. I believe a copy has been sent to the joint committee of the guiding principles we'd be using. I'll be presenting that to cabinet and introducing it, hopefully, this spring.

Mr. John Cummins: Fine.

Minister, I'd like to go now into an issue of equal concern, of greater concern in some respects, the cod moratorium. I know there are a number of issues you would like the opportunity to clarify, the first one, I think, being the matter of seals. Back in the 1970s there were about 1.8 million harp seals, according to your records, in the North Atlantic. In 1999 your department estimated 5.2 million, and I think some folks are suggesting there may be as many as 7 million now. Do you believe there are too many seals to allow for the rebuilding of the cod stocks? If so, what level of seals would you deem appropriate to allow for the rebuilding of cod stocks?

Mr. Robert Thibault: I firmly believe the ecosystem is out of balance. When you have a predator reaching that level, it has to put everything out of balance. So we will be looking at seals, but we'll also be looking at the other feed stocks within the ecosystem. We've announced a greatly increased seal hunt, which should start the reduction of the herd. Last year we used a flexible management plan, so that for only the second year, I believe, in the last 25 we reached our quota. Prices were good, conditions were good, so we let the hunters go on, and we went some 35,000 past the quota. We've announced the harvest of 975,000 seals for the next three years out of the traditional hunt. This year the prices seem to be holding off, and I'm hopeful that the industry will be successful.

As to what the real numbers should be, it's difficult for me to say. We'll be doing risk management as we go on, and if we get below five million and below three million, we'll change the level of the quota or the percentage of the population we harvest, so that we ensure a sustainable industry. But I have no problem with lowering the population from where it is now. We'll be getting a more accurate survey on seals, I believe, in the next 12 months, so we'll have a more accurate count.

Mr. John Cummins: The FRCC has recommended on a number of occasions the creation of seal exclusion zones. Some folks have a bit of trouble with that idea, and in a sense, it's understandable, but the fact of the matter is that these seals do prey on cod stocks in spawning areas, and the FRCC has been adamant over a number of years now that something be done about this. However, again, there was nothing directed towards that matter in your recent moratorium, and I wonder if you'd like to elaborate on that issue. Why is there nothing more direct on that matter?

Mr. Robert Thibault: If you're under that impression, I haven't done a very good job of communicating it, and I'm pleased to have the opportunity to correct it. With the $ 6 million study on the interaction between seals and cod, we also mentioned that the money would be used to delineate what would be the exclusion zones and the technology, ways we can effect those exclusion zones. So there's the full intention that within that two-year funding, we'll be implementing the exclusion zones.

Mr. John Cummins: Another issue of some concern has been seismic testing. DFO scientists and the FRCC have identified seismic blasting as a serious threat to these fragile cod stocks. Scientists advise that seismic blasting can drive cod out of their spawning areas and force them to spawn in areas where the young will not survive. Again, I don't see anything in your outline here that suggests that you are prepared at this point to address that issue. What do you have to say about the whole notion of seismic testing, especially the notion of seismic testing in areas that have been identified as cod spawning areas?

¹ (1550)

Mr. Robert Thibault: The question of seismic testing is relevant. We have no demonstrated effect, but it doesn't mean there isn't any. It might mean we don't have all the knowledge we'd need on it. We're doing some work now on those questions. We're going to be working in cooperation with Marathon as they do their seismic operations, we're going to be participating with them. The evidence we've got from other areas where seismic blasting has been done in fisheries areas has not been negative, but there are some considerations as to what time of year the seismic blasting should be done, just to reduce risk in certain areas that are sensitive. All those should be taken into consideration in the evaluation of the application by the exploration companies.

Mr. John Cummins: I'm not sure I understood, Minister. Did you say there is no work done to determine that seismic testing can be a problem to cod stocks? Your scientists, I believe, have stated that there is a problem with it. There have certainly been studies done in Norway that show that seismic shooting can have an effect on cod stocks. What is your opinion? Is this the case? If so, why did you not address it in your recent announcement?

Mr. Robert Thibault: The announcement wasn't concerning seismic blasting or exploration. We deal with the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, as well as the Canada-Newfoundland, give our advice to them, and they make those decisions. But we are taking active approaches on seismic blasting with the industry as they do their work to see if there is an effect and learn more about it.

Mr. John Cummins: I don't like to press the issue, Minister, but it seems to me there is ample scientific evidence, and indeed your scientists have said there's evidence, that the seismic testing can be a problem for cod stocks. You've shut the fishermen down, but you haven't shut down the seismic testing. It would seem to me that if you're engaged in a precautionary management approach, you should have addressed the issue of seismic testing, yet you haven't done that, and I fail to understand why.

Mr. Robert Thibault: We are getting more active in research on it. But look at areas like the gulf. There's no seismic blasting there, either in the southern or the northern gulf, and those are two of the principal affected areas. What's always important to us is that we make sure we get the regulators to understand the risk or the effects there could be, so that when they give their permits, they minimize them. The oil and gas industry is one of the very important uses of the ocean, it's contributing greatly to the economy in Atlantic Canada, so we try to do it in a way that minimizes the risk, to do it as safely as possible. If you look at the recommendations made in the case of the Sydney Bight, they're looking at keeping the exploration 10 kilometres offshore and doing it at a time of the year when there's the least possibility for juvenile fish to be present. There are always mitigating measures you can take.

We're working through our new centre at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography. We're going to be working closely with the industry, so that we understand fully what the effects are and mitigate them as necessary.

Mr. John Cummins: A huge issue here is the small fishery the FRCC recommended. My understanding is that the fishery that it was recommended continue would not have a large impact on the stocks, but it would give DFO an ongoing picture of the health of the cod stocks. Why did you disregard that recommendation from the FRCC?

Mr. Robert Thibault: I looked at the basis the recommendation was made on. They accept that the scientific information is valid. The scientific advice shows that any harvest puts that stock at risk, because the reproducing population is decreasing and it's very important to rebuild it. Their suggestion was to do it on an information basis, as opposed to the risk to that fish stock. I had to weigh both those factors. I figured that the best chance to rebuild that population was to remove fishing mortality. I also agreed with them, as with the all-party committee, the other groups that commented on it, and the provinces that it wasn't enough, that you had to take other action. That's why we did the reduction on caplin, 40% this year, but we're going to look at it for subsequent years, the seal exclusion zones, no-drag zones, no-trawl zones in areas that are critical, so that we're taking a comprehensive approach. We can consider other measures in the future. To keep an eye on where the stocks are, we're going to continue the sentinel fishery, which gives us a pretty good picture of the stocks in all those areas.

¹ (1555)

The Chair: Thank you very much for the concise questions and the concise answers.

[Translation]

Mr. Roy, you now have five minutes.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the Minister for being present today. I have several questions for you but let me start with a simple one that the high ranked civil servants that came to meet with us did not answer.

You have increased the slaughtering quota to 350,000 seals. I had tried to inquire about what the government is doing with regards to this issue and what has been invested in research and development particularly for finding new market for these products. I also asked your high ranked officials about the negotiations with the United States. We know that for some years we have been negotiating with the Americans without getting an answer.

I would like to know the current amounts invested by Fisheries and Ocean in the area of research and development for new products – for the seal industry –, and if we are making progress on the negotiations with the U.S. for opening the markets.

Mr. Robert Thibault: With regard to negotiations with the Americans, the question should be asked to Minister Pettigrew of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. This way we could understand if he anticipates openings. It’s very difficult. This issue is not under our control and depends on the Americans. They are the ones that resist opening the markets for seal fur skins.

As for market development it would be other Departments’ mandate. The Department of Fisheries and Ocean does not invest directly into market development.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Mr. Minister, we were told that the Department invests about $120,000. I find that amount insufficient given that the Department is supposed to promote our products. It seems like this amount was mostly dedicated to the Boston Seafood Show. Maybe we should invest more in activities that promote our products outside Canada.

Mr. Robert Thibault: It is the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food that is responsible for product development and marketing activities. They have received additional money to promote our fishing industry; that’s their mandate. It is done by that Department rather than duplicating the bureaucracy with the additional resources it would imply. You are right in saying that the only place we did promotion was the Boston Seafood Show.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Maybe we should be doing more by participating to similar activities.

Mr. Robert Thibault: Marketing activities per se should be conducted by other Agencies. Regional Agencies could participate within the framework of their travel exchanges. In that regards they could help quite a bit.

As for developing markets we work together with the provinces. We are currently discussing issues about the seal with Newfoundland and Nova-Scotia. We rely on the industry rather than the Department when comes the time to market or sell products. Meanwhile, marketing activities are conducted by the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Mr. Minister, today is May 1^st, approaching 4pm, and yet the fishing plans of almost 150 traditional Maritimes and Quebec crabbers have not been announced. When do you plan to announce them? These people are waiting. They are ready.

Mr. Robert Thibault: You have to agree that I have been extremely busy these past few weeks. Still, I want to reassure you that as soon as we have completed our round tables we will announce the fishing plans. We would like to get them out as soon as possible. It will likely be done within hours or days.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: We are also hearing days for other species?

Mr. Robert Thibault: Yes.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you. I would also like to know if the Department plans to continue to invest in training aboriginal crews. We know it is still going on, for instance in the Gaspé Peninsula.

Mr. Robert Thibault: We have negotiated development plans with them given the financing at our disposal with Marshall. In some cases the plans covered two or three years and in other cases longer periods. Training is part of that but it will take time. Often, learning is cultural with sons learning from their fathers. In the past, these communities did not fish. They want to make the transition now and start fishing. It could take a while.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: My question was very focused Mr. Minister. Today, the crews are in training. I have been told that training can take up to four years. Up to now, the training has been subsidized by the Department.

People want to know, I want to know – constituents have called about this – if the Department will continue to subsidize the training planned for the next few years.

Mr. Robert Thibault: We don’t do any training except in the case of current of future negotiated agreements with bands. We have signed 26 agreements to date. They all have varying time frames and different conditions. It is difficult for me to answer the question; I don’t know the specifics of the case you are referring to.

º (1600)

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: [Editor's Note: Inaudible] in the Gaspé Peninsula.

Mr. Robert Thibault: I will check the specific agreement and will follow up with you.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Provenzano, 10 minutes.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Mr. Minister.

I'm sure the minister recognizes the importance of taking action with respect to invasive species. We had the pleasure of having Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright, the Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, in your department, and I questioned her about the budgetary allocations relating to invasive species. As I understood her responses, approximately $8 million has been allocated for the study and control of invasive species; $6.1 million of that $8 million is for the Great Lakes sea lamprey control program, and $1.9 million is allocated for the rest of the entire country for the study and control of invasive species. I'd like your comments, Mr. Minister, on the $8 million. Do you consider that an adequate amount for the two programs I've indicated?

Mr. Robert Thibault: From the fact that you asked the question, I will conclude that you don't think it's enough, but I don't think you are suggesting that I should take the money from the sea lamprey and distribute it elsewhere. It is a very important question. Invasive species are becoming an increasing problem, and it is not going to slow down, because maritime transport is forecasted to increase. With more world trade, it should be doubling in the next 10 years. I am not sure if those facts are accurate, but it is a big increase. Sea lamprey is a good example, the zebra mussel, club tunicate, green crab, all problems in our fisheries that are very resilient and very difficult, after they get here, to eradicate. It is a lot better if we can keep them from getting here, and that means a lot of work from a lot of countries and a lot of departments within the federal government.

We have set up a working group that includes the provinces and the department, along with other departments, like Environment and Transport, that have a role to play. They will be developing a strategy, and then it will be my job, as well as other ministers', to get the funding necessary for the federal part, so that we have a federal strategy to supplement what we are doing now. What we are doing now has been very successful on lamprey. It could use more resources. We are doing some good work with institutions on other invasive species in the Atlantic, but there remains a lot of work to do.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Minister, I certainly was not trying to prepare you for any sort of trick question. It does seem, quite frankly, that $1.9 million allocated right across the country is a small amount. It may be an adequate amount, as I don't have the overview you might have with respect to the nature and the status of some of these programs for study and control of invasive species. Specifically dealing with the sea lamprey control allocation--

º (1605)

Mr. Robert Thibault: To add something there, those figures might be somewhat understated, because we also have an aquaculture development program where we do partnerships with industry in research and development. Quite a bit of that money is looking at any problems there can be, including invasive species, in the case of some of the aquaculture operations.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Just dealing with the Great Lakes and one invasive species, the sea lamprey, I can give personal testimony as to the way that program has worked so successfully. As you know my riding, Sault Ste. Marie, is right there where three of the Great Lakes join. The sea lamprey, basically, had decimated the trout population in the Great Lakes. You couldn't catch a large trout. That program, for relatively few dollars, did create effective control over that species.

It's my understanding that the $6.1 million has been what the department has allocated to the program in the last number of years. It has been said, Minister, that we have been reneging on the agreement we have with the United States. There is a funding formula, which sometimes is referred to as an A-base funding formula. Traditionally, I think, the United States has contributed about 69% of the sea lamprey control program, Canada has contributed approximately 31%. There are some people who say maybe that $6 million is about 18% or 19%. I think it's important, Minister, that we have a consistent level of funding allocated to that program. It's not a lot of money. I'd like your comments on that. Is there going to be any change? Is the department thinking at all of reducing that amount? We've heard some rumblings of late that possibly that $6.1 million is going to be reduced.

Mr. Robert Thibault: The cost-sharing formula for funding isn't an obligation under our convention with the U.S. As you mentioned, it has been very successful and it's a good program. We've been funding it, and plan to continue to do so, but not necessarily out of our A-base. We cash-manage within the department, see it as an unfunded priority, if you like, and in every area we continue to be able to find some money. As you know, in the budget we have to reallocate $1 billion across government, so every department has to contribute. We all have to look at what our top priorities are, what we are doing that's beyond our core, where we can make some cutbacks and find our share. A program like that would, of course, be one of the first areas considered, because it isn't necessarily part of the core, but given the effectiveness and the importance of it, any cuts there would be a last resort.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Minister, would you not agree that when you're dealing with, in relative terms, a relatively small amount, $6.1 million, the effect of any percentage cut is going to be felt in a way that might be very detrimental to the program? Costs go up, and we've been contributing roughly the same amount of money for years. So the purchasing power of that $6.1 million today certainly is less than it was five years ago. From that perspective, any further reduction in the amount of that budget allocation would create even more serious hardship. Normally, you would look at increasing it, just to keep pace with inflation, the added costs of chemicals and so on. To think of cutting a program where only $6.1 million is allocated just doesn't seem to be right

º (1610)

Mr. Robert Thibault: That will be taken into consideration before any final decision is made. As I mentioned, this is a good program, it has been very successful. It's a great partnership between Canada and the United States. Also, we're beginning to investigate whether there are other avenues to raise funds to participate in that program and other similar programs in the region. We'll be active.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I would also appreciate your taking into consideration the effect on the accord between Canada and the United States with respect to this program. If there is a reduction, the suggestions that we've been reneging in the past are going to look even more true, and I would not want our government to be in that position.

Mr. Robert Thibault: Thank you for the comments, and I do take them seriously. That certainly will be an important consideration.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Provenzano.

We're back to Mr. Cummins for five minutes.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, today on the west coast in Vancouver, at Sea Island, the only hovercraft available is now out of service, and it's going to be out of service for at least the next two weeks. The waters off Vancouver airport and the Vancouver harbour are the busiest waters in Canada. You at one point made a commitment that a replacement hovercraft would be available in Vancouver in September 2003. Later you said there would be a hovercraft available by Christmas 2003. Now I'm led to believe a coast guard official in Vancouver is saying there will be a hovercraft available in February 2004, but he has no details as to where that hovercraft will come from or what would be required to make that hovercraft suitable for search and rescue. What answer do you have to the fact that this very busy airport in Vancouver, the second busiest airport in Canada, is now lacking this very important piece of safety and rescue equipment?

Mr. Robert Thibault: As you mentioned, we have a very good hovercraft there that's in for maintenance at the current time, before we go into our busiest season. We are getting a second hovercraft. We've identified the vessel and drafted the specs for the modifications, so it meets our requirements. It is the plan to accept delivery in February. We've made alternative plans. DND is participating with helicopters to assist us, so we can meet our requirements.

As you know, the airport has its own plan. They're responsible for any emergency measures. Included in their plan are, of course, our assets, including the hovercraft, but they understand, when they do their planning, that the primary role of our hovercraft would be search and rescue. Even if we had two on base ready to go at any given time, they could both be gone on a search and rescue mission at a time when they are needed on the mud flats by the airport. So they have alternaivte measures within their plans. We're a participant, not necessarily a leader in the airport's emergency measures plans.

Mr. John Cummins: I would challenge you on that, Minister. The fact of the matter is that the Vancouver airport emergency plan calls for not one, but two hovercraft to be available in the event that a large passenger liner sets down in the mud flats off the airport. It is the responsibility of the coast guard to provide rescue service in the marine environment, not that of the Vancouver airport. Currently, we are only providing coverage about 70% of the time, because the vessel that's on-station now is off at times for ordinary refits and ordinary servicing. A second hovercraft is essential. You have been advised, as I understand it, by the coast guard that you're required to provide this hovercraft coverage for Vancouver airport, so how can you allow the situation to deteriorate to a point where there is no coverage now in the second busiest airport in Canada? It's the same as operating a busy airport like Vancouver without a fire truck on the scene. The airport authority wouldn't consider that, so why should they consider operating that airport, or why should it be operated, without adequate waterborne search and rescue craft?

º (1615)

Mr. Robert Thibault: The airport remains responsible for the emergency response plans. All our assets would be included in that plan, I would presume. I've never seen the plan, but I've been part of emergency measures organizations in my former job. I would presume that all our assets are included there, and they would be well aware that we have only one hovercraft at the base now, so they would not have two hovercraft in their plan. They would know any assets we have available would be used to assist in any emergency and we'll use all available alternatives to the hovercraft when they're not on station.

Mr. John Cummins: You're currently looking at a 20-year-old hovercraft from England, I understand. I've some difficulty here. You've a hovercraft service in Vancouver that operates 24 hours a day seven days a week. In the last year I have records for it was dispatched over 300 times in the year. In Quebec you've 2 hovercraft that operate business hours five days a week about 10 months of the year and are used primarily for ice-breaking. Their call-out in that same timeframe involved about 8 search and rescue calls. We were told the last time the assistant commissioner for the coast guard was here that you've set aside $24 million to build a new hovercraft for Quebec to replace the back-up they currently have and you've allocated only $6 million for the used replacement in Vancouver. How do you square that circle? It sure doesn't make sense to me or anybody else I've talked to.

Mr. Robert Thibault: The hovercraft we are looking at is approximately 15 years old and in very good condition. We are getting it retrofitted so that it meets our requirements. That would be for the short term. We would, as part of our recapitalization plan, be building a new hovercraft equivalent or similar to the Siyay, so we'd have two of those vehicles available for Vancouver.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Minister and staff, thank you for coming.

Here's something you can take back to the cabinet. I understand they're looking for $1 billion in readjustment in order to spend on other areas. I think you can do it in one fell swoop by killing Bill C-68, the gun legislation. That way you don't have to raid other programs, the “Peter to pay Paul” syndrome.

I want to start off by acknowledging the work Mr. Provenzano and Mr. Steckle have done on the sea lamprey program in bringing awareness. Please do not cut that program. There are many people of the OFAH who have said very clearly that any cuts to this program will have disastrous effects on the commercial and recreational fishery of the Great Lakes. I just encourage you, sir, not to cut that.

One of the great things that have happened through DFO is what's going on after the Marshall decision. The department should be congratulated for the work of Membertou, Eskasoni, Burnt Church, etc. That's the nice part.

I'm going to ask one more time, sir. The decision you made last Thursday, obviously, would have been difficult for you; I don't think you have fun making decisions like that. But the boys have asked very clearly--and they're watching now--if you have any plans to revisit that decision, or is it final?

The Chair: What decision?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The decision to shut the gulf and northern and western fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador. Sorry, I should have elaborated, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Robert Thibault: You would understand that a decision like that is not a trial balloon, you don't make it lightly, you make it after long and due consideration, after a lot of consultation. I had discussions about this with Atlantic Canadian fisheries ministers and the Quebec fisheries minister on a couple of occasions. I met with the Newfoundland Minister of Fisheries about five times in the last five months, and it was discussed every time. I met with the industry. I had a lot of discussions on the scientific evidence; there were some challenges to the science. I made sure I was confident in my own mind that I was given advice that was sound. After long consideration I made the decision, and when I made it, it was for one time.

º (1620)

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Is it fair to say for the record that the answer is no, that you do not plan to revisit it?

Mr. Robert Thibault: The only way I would reconsider the decision is if I were absolutely sure the facts on which I based the decision were false, and I am confident that it was the correct information.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

On an unrelated matter, there was a moratorium off Cape Breton in 4VN to prevent dragging in a winter fishery for over 10 years, and that moratorium was lifted last winter. Was your decision to lift that moratorium and allow dragging, which, in many fishermen's view, is the most destructive form of fishing, science-based, or was there another reason you did that?

Mr. Robert Thibault: I know it's my responsibility, and I don't disavow it, but it's not a decision I made. When I accepted the FRCC recommendation and the plan was rolled over to similar ones, that fleet had a certain amount of fish. They hadn't been able to harvest it at that time of year at that place with draggers, because there was a fear that there could be mixing of the stocks. There was a giant science study done with tagging of these fish, fencing, counting to show where the distribution of the fish was at that time. It indicated that there was no mixing of the populations. On that basis, at the regional level, in implementing the existing plan, that fishing was permitted, because there was no further reason not to let it happen. So the short answer is that it would have been a science-based decision, because it was based on the information they had gathered. It did not require additional ministerial decisions.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Did the FRCC advise you to do that? Are they in favour of the decision?

Mr. Robert Thibault: The FRCC advise me on the allocation. I don't look to the FRCC on harvesting technologies, on all the other things. Sometimes they give comments, and I encourage them and work on the comments, but what I look to the FRCC for is the level at which I should permit the fishery.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Our colleague Larry Bagnell, who represents the Yukon, is unfortunately not here. I haven't spoken to him, but I want to ask the question from the Klondike Placer Miners Association. With the decision to cancel the Yukon placer agreement, they have asked quite clearly, because it has really upset the apple cart, if there have been any consultations with your department, the Yukon territorial government, and other people about postponing the cancellation of the YPA in order that cooler heads can prevail and everyone can get back to the table, including aboriginal groups, to work out a long strategic plan for placer mining and fish habitat protection in the Yukon.

Mr. Robert Thibault: We've come a long way. The department, along with the Yukon, the placer miners, the aboriginal leadership, have formed an committee to implement the phase-out of the YPA. They had their first meeting looking at the agenda. I'm going to attempt to be present for one of their meetings. They're working very positively and they're very encouraged. I talked to the president of the miners association yesterday. We've put off for one year the implementation. Initially, we said the first year the existing mines would go under the YPA. We've agreed that also new applicants would go under the YPA for the first year. We've also agreed with them that we could consider what the implementation schedule should be, as long as we were positively working towards implementation. So as we see the progress being made, we can discuss the timelines.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. LeBlanc.

º (1625)

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for coming before the committee and for your comments.

A number of colleagues have touched on issues I was hoping to have an exchange with you on. I'm glad Peter Stoffer talked about the good work the department has done with respect to implementing Marshall. People tend to focus on a few unfortunate incidents some years ago, but in the area I represent your officials have done a very good job in negotiating agreements with big first nations, like Big Cove. It's not in the media, but it's good news, they're working together at a fishing harbour in Richibucto. For the first time there are about 60 aboriginal and 60 non-aboriginal fishermen, the president of the port authority is an aboriginal guy from Big Cove, and they're developing the port together. So there's a good feeling around that stuff, and those are things I wish people could see more often.

Another area, Minister, where I think you deserve a lot of credit and thanks is with respect to small craft harbours. When we arrived at this place two and a half years ago, we both realized that in the areas we represented the small craft harbours were in great need of work and there was a catch-up required. People at this committee many times have talked about it, and you've done a good job in our area. There's never enough money, but one of the things I'm hoping you and your officials can look at is this. I have a lot of very small fishing harbours, 20, 30, 40 core fishermen, and they're on your list of schedule harbours, but when the major capital projects come out, it's very hard for them to have enough points to ever get on the list. Sometimes they're small projects of $100,000 to fix a breakwater, to do an extension, or something. That's a source of some concern, to find a way the small wharves can compete in a system that always has more requests than it has money.

That is one question. I'll give the second question, Minister, and perhaps you can answer the two of them.

[Translation]

Mr. Roy has raised the issue of snow crabs in zone 12. We are anxiously awaiting your decision with regards to fishing plans, but there is an issue of particular interest to me, and we have discussed it many times you and I: it is the question of permanent access for coastal fishermen, the non-traditional fishermen.

[English]

the non-traditional fishermen. I attended a number of public or semi-public meetings you had in New Brunswick over the last year with different groups, and you were quite clear where you wanted to see this fishery end up. For the people I represent to have permanent access even at a modest level, and it will unfortunately never be at a percentage that in a perfect world they would like, would be a huge thing for those communities. The inshore lobster fishermen haven't had the luck some in your area have had, for a bunch of reasons. so I'm hoping you can tell us how you see the integration of some of these inshore fishermen and if at the end of some transitional period they could end up with permanent licences. The fishermen would then have access to this fishery.

Mr. Robert Thibault: Both of those questions are on the same idea. As you mentioned, every time somebody picks up the paper, they see the negative news about the fishery, the positive side doesn't get a lot of play. We have for the fifth year in a row reached record export sales in the fisheries. Some areas of the fisheries are doing very well; there are areas that are in very difficult circumstances and some communities are affected, but in other areas there is growth. That calls on a lot of resources for support.

If you look at small craft harbours, you are absolutely right, we didn't have enough money to maintain them, and the system of points to calculate which harbours were going to get funding from the federal government was established. I don't think anybody had any bad intentions, but we had a formula. It doesn't take everything into consideration. There are always people who are at an advantage and others who are disadvantaged and don't necessarily meet the requirements. We were fortunate that we were able to get $20 million per year for the next five years to assist with small craft harbours completely off the point system, and 80% of that money last year was awarded to very small harbour projects. We were able to assist those communities. They have harbour authorities that are doing very good work, and they needed some support. We will continue to do that this year and for three years after that.

Rather than a point system, what I would like to do, and we are going in that direction, though it may take a little time, because we'll have to go region by region, is look at fishing regions and see what is needed now and what will be needed in 20 years in the emerging fishery. The point system of allocating the money looks at the old fishery, what was happening in the past. For example, I was in Twillingate last year. That area is expanding, with a lot of large vessels going there. The vessels are the 65-foot fleet that fish scallops and a lot of shrimp. Their needs are big and would not necessarily be reflected in past harvests and other factors that would give them the funding. There still is need for rationalization, and we have to go to a long-term plan.

As for the crab, in the gulf I would like to stop the perennial dance of quota share. Everybody wants 120% of the quota. I would like to decide once and for all what percentage goes to the traditional fleet and to the non-traditional fleet. It is going to be a little difficult within the non-traditional fleet to see who gets what. In time I would want the quota, rather than being given to associations, to be given to individual fishermen and transferable among them, so that if the resource goes up or down and somebody wants to leave the fishery, they can sell their interest and leave with dignity, will not have to ask for handouts. They could choose to invest in another business, or if they want to pass it on to their family, they might want to invest more and get more resources, so they could buy from somebody who is leaving. I believe it's a good way to build for the long term.

We have been very successful in Newfoundland and Labrador. We made the inshore fishery permanent this year. In the ensuing months we will be discussing the way to do the ITQ system, the transferability system, so that we do it in a way that respects the culture in the communities--how many licences per boat should be the maximum, whether you should be able to sell from one area to the other. We'll get that from the communities themselves. I laid out the principles and objectives, but as to the details, I think nobody can tell us better than the communities themselves. I'd like to do the same thing in the gulf.

º (1630)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me also thank the minister and his staff for being here.

Minister, we recognize several positives in your department. We have other things to talk about, but we do recognize them, and we also recognize the contribution and the service provided by your staff, not only here in Ottawa, but certainly in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have great cooperation from a number of your staff. We don't blame them for any of the problems, and that's why we have you here today, I guess.

Let's start with a couple of snappers. This past week or so fishermen in smaller boats, 35 and over, have been told they must have black box locator devices in their boats by May 15, two weeks down the road. These devices, I understand, can cost anywhere from $1,600 to $6,000. In a place like Newfoundland, people are regressing in the fishery, rather than moving ahead. These are crab boats, any type of boat, it doesn't matter. I'm not sure what the story is, but a letter actually went to the fishermen stating they must have this device in their boats by May 15. I'm presuming there's a mix-up or a mistake somewhere, because this is certainly unreasonable.

Mr. Robert Thibault: I thought I was in the dark, but my department tells me we have no--

Mr. Loyola Hearn: I have notified them, and they are looking into it, so we may get an answer soon, but a letter went to fishermen. That's where we got the call saying these devices must be in the boats by the fifteenth. I understand there's a panic on even trying to find them. They have to go to the States, I think, to get them, and the cost is exorbitant, this time of the year in particular, as they're gearing up for the fishery.

Mr. Robert Thibault: I don't want to say it's not the case or it is. I'll check and get back to you. As a matter of principle and practice, we are encouraging in more and more fleets the use of the black boxes.

º (1635)

Mr. Loyola Hearn: They agree. It's the timing and the amount, and if that can be corrected, everything else I think will work out.

Mr. Robert Thibault: I'll have a review of the situation.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you.

Last year the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans put pressure enough on government to make sure you got the extra $100 million for small craft harbours, which has been very beneficial. During the same report the committee recommended that you look at wharves, not solely owned, that were essential in certain areas. Now that money has been spent on at least one, and you did mention that you were studying that possibility, can we now take it that a decision has been made that where such wharves are essential, DFO, through small craft harbours, will address the needs in those areas?

Mr. Robert Thibault: Those would be unowned wharves you're talking about?

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Actually, it would be all federal government money in most cases, but created through Canada Works programs, small craft harbours, whatever, over the years, probably half a dozen in Newfoundland, if that many. I'm aware of only two.

Mr. Robert Thibault: Are you suggesting wharves that are probably--

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Not solely owned is the term--

Mr. Robert Thibault: Not solely owned by DFO.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: The department had agreed to look at the fact that in certain areas the only serviceable wharf was this particular type of structure, and in some cases it could be exchanged for a solely owned wharf that wasn't needed, That's what I'm thinking of in particular.

Mr. Robert Thibault: Policy dictates that we only invest in our wharves. I think there have been some rare exceptions, but I don't know if we did it or it was done through the regional development agency. It's certainly something to consider, because there are areas--and we're reviewing that now--where it would be better for us to divest ourselves of our property and reinvest in a better location. I believe there was one in your riding.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: It's dragged, that's the only thing. This is the same answer we got over a year ago, but I'm presuming within the department something is moving forward.

Great concern has been expressed by a lot of people about the size of shrimp this year. In certain areas the shrimp seem to be much smaller and to have eggs of a much smaller size. Some people think it might be overcrowding that's causing it. In other areas, such as 3L, an area just recently opened up, the shrimp seem pretty abundant and very large, because the concentration isn't there. Does anybody have a spin on that?

Mr. Robert Thibault: I wouldn't know much about that, but a big shrimp would be a contradiction in terms.

The evidence we have on the stock is that they're doing very well and we can expect a good increase in the harvest levels. Last year it would have been a similar case, but the industry had asked me to hold back because of market conditions. Whether they're small I don't know. We have nothing we could give you here today.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Minister, I have to quickly go back to this hovercraft business. The coast guard has known since December 2001, in fact, it probably knew before, a new hovercraft was going to be required for the Vancouver airport. We understand from the manufacturer that it only takes about 12 months to build a new hovercraft. If a new one had been ordered in December 2001, it would have been in service. Why was the new hovercraft not ordered? Why are you prepared to put the travelling public at risk off the mouth of the Fraser River in British Columbia?

Mr. Robert Thibault: The information I get is that we couldn't build a new one in that amount of time with our recapitalization plan. We could acquire a used one for the short term, and then build a new one in the medium term. We have specific requirements, and hovercraft have to be built to those requirements, so sometimes it take a little more time. But what I have asked my coast guard officials to do, because I got that information also from a manufacturer, a naval construction company in British Columbia, is verify that they could do it in a short period.

Mr. John Cummins: You can talk to the people who built the last one for the coast guard, or the last couple, and they'll tell you it doesn't take 48 months, as some of your people have suggested.

Last year we had some officials from your department before the committee towards the end of May, and I asked them about this boating operator's card. I think it was the commissioner himself, Mr. Adams, who said there were huge problems with that program, but he assured us that the coast guard was going to address that issue in the next year. Yet I have information, for example, from Red Deer, and they tell us there they're completely out of the safe boating guide booklets that are required if you're going to take this operator's test. Is this program still scurrying around trying to find some direction?

º (1640)

Mr. Robert Thibault: It's a big program to implement. We're continuing to make improvements, and we'll make sure they get more booklets if that's a big problem. The principle of the program is to get people to be more aware of the dangers in small boats. If we look annually at the number of accidents we have, the number of search and rescue operations, and the number of lives lost, it's very seldom that it's professional boaters. It's recreational, small boats, sometimes very near the shore in lakes. So I think this program should pay dividends in the long run.

Mr. John Cummins: But if that's the case, why aren't you approaching it in a professional manner? Why isn't the coast guard putting together a licensing program that makes sense? For example, now people take the test and they're given a card. DFO, the coast guard, have no record of that card. There's no number on it that identifies the individual. In fact, individuals who have taken the course have been advised to photocopy it in case they lose the original. If I passed a photocopied driver's licence to a police officer, I don't think I'd get too far. If this is a serious program, why are your officials advising people simply to photocopy the licence they're given? Why is that sufficient if this program is so important?

Mr. Robert Thibault: We recognize that there are some shortcomings, which we're fixing. We also recognize that there are some people who've been doing a less than stellar job in administering the course and the exam, and we're setting up procedures to make sure people have good instruction, good information, and do go out in boats knowledgable and minimizing the risk of accidents.

Mr. John Cummins: That's the same answer I got from the commissioner of the coast guard last year. So we'll rest that case.

There's another issue, and it may seem rather petty, but it's important, because the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, I think, has a core mandate and the coast guard has a core mandate. Part of that has to be the placement of navigational buoys, and yet I've been told the department is backing away from that obligation in the interior of British Columbia, in some of the lakes in the Okanagan, and are attempting to download the responsibility onto municipalities. Do you have any comment on that matter?

Mr. Robert Thibault: We are reviewing all our operations, including our navigational buoys all across the country, to see where we are operating them, what expenses we're going through, whether we or somebody else should be doing it. By policy, we won't be maintaining them on uncharted waterways, we won't be maintaining the buoys in navigational waterways where there are a low number of users or single users. For example, if there's an marina that needs two or three buoys, I think they're best placed to maintain and operate them, rather than the Canadian taxpayer.

I think it will always help to have a review. It's not just because we did it in the past that we should do it in the future. We're also modernizing the equipment that we're using. We always offer our services to the new users. If people want to do it privately, it's a navigational regulation, we give them the equipment, expert advice, expertise, we work cooperatively with them.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I would like to discuss some more the fishing plans for crab since Mr. Leblanc brought forward the subject. I am not trying to get the exact dates—I know full well that you will be the one making the announcement—, yet I have a sense of urgency. There are some 1400 to 1500 workers currently kept in the dark. They are not entitled to employment insurance.

I fail to understand why we are late every year in announcing these plans. Is there another way; should we be doing more planning?

Let’s say that we currently have x stocks. As I see it, we may increase the number of reduce it but we still should have a basic idea, even if we need to make an adjustment later but without creating delays. Otherwise, everyone starts the day after as if it was a race. People are expecting a date and a ballpark of what it will be.

º (1645)

Mr. Robert Thibault: I can tell you that one of the reasons why we have this problem is that everyone wants to discuss with the Minister at the 11th hour, everyone wants to know the fishing plans and the impact the decision will have.

These are often very difficult decisions because they have economic and cultural impacts on communities. What we are now doing to mitigate these issues is to set up multi-year and joint management agreements. We are trying to do just that in the case of crab fishing; we would like a long-term agreement. Then, if we feel it is not working as intended we may discuss issues, introduce changes and modifications. This would not necessarily happen the day prior to the opening of fishing; it could be done anytime during the three years, and the agreement could range from three to five years.

I think this is the way to go because this period is already very difficult for my staff, and if we encounter additional problems, difficult cases then it affects everyone. For this reason I believe multi-year agreements is the solution to many of our problems.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Can we assume these plans will be in place promptly? How soon do you think we will get there?

Mr. Robert Thibault: In hours or days? For some of these plans I need to be in my office working them, or I can be meeting with you.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: OK.

Mr. Minister, I have an additional question concerning the moratorium. I am referring to the five plants of the Gaspé Cure Inc. consortium where 400 jobs have been lost. What we are told by the people is that the help plan that was announced does not respond adequately to the needs. Indeed, the plants will already be dead, if I may use such an expression, before we are able to reengineer the work in order to refocus the production.

Today these 400 men and women are workers trained in transformation. If we are not able to quickly offer them work, these plants will shut down and the skilled labour will be lost. That is why people are worried when they were told it would take five to six months and that it required consultations. But in the interim what are you planning to do in conjunction with Economic Development Agency of Canada to offer them something tomorrow? These workers are no longer entitled to unemployment insurance, they are kept in the dark and we are told they have no avenues. In the end they are dependent on welfare; it’s as simple as that.

Mr. Robert Thibault: In the case of the transformation industry, as for everyone else, the transition will be painful. That’s why we came up with a short-term help plan, to help people, to create jobs, to help them get unemployment insurance in order to support themselves. The plan does not target individuals but communities. The fishermen are not the only ones that are affected; there are other people in the communities. Those that work in stores, carpenters; everyone is affected.

The help plan announced is therefore targeting communities, not just individuals. We reach individuals through their communities that are affected, but we go beyond that. We want to launch discussions to find objectives in partnership with provincial governments to create long-term economic development. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans will not act alone, but with the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency as well as the Department of Human Resources Development Canada that will have to participate in this.

I think that Gaspé Cure Inc. has made suggestions to the Department of Human Resources Development Canada. There could be avenues there; I am not sure exactly. This is a very prestigious industry with a product of international reputation. I am not sure what they did during the first closing in 1992-1993, whether they imported fish, how they survived, and whether they had possibilities elsewhere. We hope they will survive.

º (1650)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, it's a pleasure to see you at the meeting today.

I'm not a regular any more at this table, but I've been a regular for many years and there are number of issues that are very close to me and I'm very passionate about. I've spoken to you personally about the sea lamprey program. I was listening to your opening comments and some catch phrases, something to the effect that you want to protect our fishing resources, that fish come first. When I hear those kinds of comments, I find some consolation, because I know there's a minister who cares about the species. You mentioned $120 million in that species at risk fund over a period of five years.

You might wonder why someone from Ontario would want to sit on a fisheries committee, but let me assure those members of the committee and those who are watching via television that the fresh water fishery in Canada is just as large as the coastal fisheries. From Ontario comes about 42% of the total budget moneys used in DFO, but returning to Ontario is only 2% of that money. We're asking for $8 million to sustain the sea lamprey program, and at that level we would find supporting agencies to complement that program with further moneys, with no need to come to government for more money. Those agencies, the OFAH for example, with 83,000 members, have committed to me more money, but we need to come in at $8 million. We've been at $6.1 million for a good number of years. You're now the fifth minister I've spoken to asking for this to be put into A-base funding. We asked for that in 1998, when we did our fresh water fisheries report. I'm sure down the road you're going to hear more requests. There are so many people in sports fishing, 800,000 in Ontario. The sports fishing industry returns to the capital coffers of this government something like $65 million to $70 million just in GST. So we're returning eight times more than we're asking.

I don't believe our ministers are to blame for the fact that we're not getting into A-base, but somehow departmental people remain in place after ministers have gone, and I would hope, Mr. Minister, you will make the commitment to find the A-base funding for this, so that every year we don't have to come back and ask for this money. I know you're committed to this cause. Would you make the commitment today at this meeting that the $6.1 million at least--though we hope for more--will not be reduced for this particular year? We are now in the midst of the spawning season, the money is committed, this is a timing issue. Would you make that commitment today at this meeting?

Mr. Robert Thibault: It's difficult for me to make a commitment, but I take your representation very seriously. Your colleague Mr. Provenzano has mentioned it. I can assure you that I consider this a very valuable program. We wouldn't make a reduction like that unless we absolutely had to. We understand the relationship with the U.S. in the funding partnership there and that we are already funding less than they are. We wouldn't want to see slippage on that program. It's been very successful in reducing the sea lamprey. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure often, so if we had the slippage, it wouldn't be a very positive thing. I just want to mention, as you are aware undoubtedly, that we do more than just research in fresh water. We have the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, we have the Freshwater Research Institute, we also have coast guard services and all those. So the money invested by DFO goes beyond the $6.1 million.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Yes, I'm quite aware of that, Mr. Minister. The 2% does include coast guard work and the fishery commission, as you mentioned. Those have been taken into the calculations.

When we look at what we have done, and there are a number of other issues, that is a big one for us. Our commitment is to 31% of the program. We're at 17%. The State of Michigan jumped in with $3 million four years ago for a three-year program, and since then another state has come in with a bit of money, so they are taking up our slack. This commitment was made in 1955, let's meet that commitment. It's good for our relationship with our American neighbours, it is certainly good for the economy of this country, and I would encourage you.

I also have another issue, ballast water. How do the invasive species get into the Great Lakes to begin with? I think we need to do more there. There were recommendations in 1998 that addressed that issue. I realize it's a joint effort among a number of ministries, it's not just Fisheries and Oceans, but I would hope we take this seriously enough. We have the Asian carp now moving up through the United States, and the import of live Asian carp into Ontario. We have the Chinese snake, or whatever it's name is, a fish that seems to be able to walk on land. I don't know how far it can walk, but it can walk far enough that it can move from one body of water to another. We have a lot of new things happening we never thought possible. So I think we have to do a whole lot to prevent these things happening. As you just mentioned a moment ago, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

º (1655)

Mr. Robert Thibault: I think the member was making a lot of very valid comments. As I mentioned earlier, we're working with the provincial governments and with other departments to create a strategy, to give us a framework, so that we can establish programs to minimize the risk of invasive species. We'll never be able to eliminate them, but if we can minimize that risk and take early action once we have a problem.... It's always going to be difficult. The ones that give us the problems are the ones that are most adaptive. They tend to spread very quickly and are very difficult to eradicate.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The minister said earlier, in relation to the decision to close the cod fishery in the northern and southern gulf and 2J, 3K, 3L, he had long consultations. I know he had, but I'm just wondering to whom he listened. The FRCC, the union, the Minister of Fisheries from Newfoundland, the government leader, the opposition leader, the NDP leader, all members of all parties, anyone who had any direct connection, everybody involved in the fishery, did not disagree with the fact that something had to be done, it was the way it was done and the complete lack of acting on advice given. Every bit of consultation the minister had with any of these groups basically produced advice on how to deal with the problem in a much more positive manner. From whom did the minister seek advice from outside these groups, and whose advice did he follow? It's unanimous in the province of Newfoundland that the way this problem was handled was not the way recommended by the package of consultations put together by, I'd say, practically everybody involved with the industry in that province. I would also add to those who were against the way the minister proceeded his own friend, the minister responsible for ACOA, who was part of this general package that was presented to the minister. How could everybody be wrong except the minister?

Mr. Robert Thibault: That's a good question. The member has always made a lot of suggestions and representations in favour of custodial management, because he understands that the Canadian minister is, of course, infallible in decision-making. It's a fundamental question, the whole thing of consultation. When you consult, it doesn't mean you're necessarily going to be convinced, but it's important that you listen. If you look at all those organizations you mentioned, I did consult them all. I also spoke with a lot of the members of those committees and commissions and governments privately, and they gave me some advice and some different stories sometimes. The all-party committee made a recommendation to keep the fishery going at a sustainable level, and the scientific advice I had was that it was not possible, there was no level that was sustainable with the current state of the stocks.

One of the important things for me is to look at what the basis of recommendations is, because if I were in the position of a lot of these people, I would probably say the same thing, but I'm not in that position. If I'm going to take a risk, I have to know what the reaction is on both sides. If I'm going to take the risk of closing a fishery, I have to understand what the economic impact is. If I'm going to take a decision to keep it open, I have to understand what the risk is to the future of that fishery. We have to balance both. The FRCC, and I'm sure you have read their report, are not denying the science, they're suggesting that maybe that risk is necessary in order to have more scientific information. It's a quasi-political decision they make, rather than going on what the stock reduction should be to maintain that stock.

So I had to balance those and a lot of other opinions against scientific advice that was peer reviewed; 70 experts discussed it for 10 days, took in the season, put some in, took some out, turned it every way, and they didn't come up with the fish. It took a little bit of time and it wasn't easy. If I made a mistake, it's redeemable in the future. If I'd made the mistake the other way, had a limited fishery, and it was detrimental to the stock and brought it to commercial extinction, it would not be not redeemable. So I took what I believed to be the responsible decision.

» (1700)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, in September 2002 you were advised that a back-up hovercraft is urgently required, timing was critical due to the impending loss of hovercraft CG-045 in October 2002. Why did you not act when you were given the message that a replacement was urgently required?

Mr. Robert Thibault: We are acting. We are getting a replacement hovercraft and we will be getting a new one through our recapitalization program. We work with all other responders to make sure we have the resources available to carry out our responsibilities. I have a part of the airport disaster emergency plan that says, if the hovercraft is at base, who they call, what they do, if the hovercraft is not at base, what they do. They understand that we won't always have a hovercraft available, that there are other assets that we must utilize in the case of an emergency in that instance. The Department of National Defence during our repairs have moved a helicopter closer to the area of concern. Those things are all taken very seriously.

Mr. John Cummins: Have you purchased a hovercraft yet, a replacement?

Mr. Robert Thibault: I don't know if the hovercraft has been purchased yet, but we have options on it, and I'm discussing the specifications.

Mr. John Cummins: Is that theFreedom 90, the old ferry that's no longer able to carry passengers?

Mr. Robert Thibault: It's theLiv Viking.

Mr. John Cummins: The Liv Viking, according to my information, is an even older hovercraft, which was described to me as in terrible shape. So you're contemplating purchasing that. How much will it cost?

Mr. Robert Thibault: With all the respect I have for the member, when I took the advice on which hovercraft we needed and how it should be modified, I took it from the experts within our department who are drafting the technical details so that it best answers our needs.

Mr. John Cummins: How much are you paying for it?

Mr. Robert Thibault: I'm not sure what the exact figure is.

Mr. John Cummins: How much is it going to cost to refurbish it?

Mr. Robert Thibault: I can't give you the exact figure. I can get you that information.

» (1705)

Mr. John Cummins: Is it the $6 million you've set aside for this purchase?

Mr. Robert Thibault: I don't remember. I can get you those figures later. I don't know if we'll have the final figures on the hovercraft until we get the technical specifications all finished and the contract.

The Chair: Minister, if you could get that information for the committee, that would be good. Thank you.

Mr. John Cummins: I want to skip back, then, to boater registration, because it's an equally troubling matter. You're spending money on boater registration, and I'd like to know how much, because you're also cutting a service, properly marked navigational channels, which are used largely by recreational boaters. I'm not sure why this boater registration program is continuing the way it is, because you're not keeping any records. The people at the 1-800 number are advising people that there's no central registry, telling them to photocopy their card. They say, be careful in choosing a company when you take the course, because you want it to be one that will be in business in the future, as the issuing company is the only one that has a record of your having taken the course. That hardly sounds like a well thought out boater safety program to me. Why are you pursuing this expensive program when at the same time you're chopping a very essential service, the placement of marine navigation buoys?

Mr. Robert Thibault: They are two very different programs. One is aids to navigation. We are looking at where we should be, where we don't need to be, where there are a lot of users. In some instances we may increase our services, where there are increased needs, where there's increased usage. Boating safety costs us under $6 million a year. I think it's valid that we have that training, that we have people get that level of awareness that they are putting their lives at risk, they are putting the lives of others at risk. I'm very surprised that you would call so much for a registry. It's been your party's position in the past that registries weren't such a good thing.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the Minister of Fisheries for coming.

Approximately two weeks ago I wrote to you and the Minister of HRDC requesting the extension of EI benefits for fishermen who can't fish because of severe ice conditions. Can we expect something positive on that?

Mr. Robert Thibault: That you'd have to bring up with the Minister of HRDC. I've had discussions with her also. DFO at one time, prior to 1992, transferred money to HRDC when there was a complete ice-up of the full region. There have been requests in the past. We have no budget from which to do it, no money, it would have to come out of other programs, so I would invite you to speak with Minister Stewart.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Thank you.

On your Thursday announcement shutting down the cod fishery, in past fisheries closure announcements there have been some very significant and important components. I listened to you carefully about your difficult decision and the reasons, but of course, your decision left a lot of hardship for fishermen, fish plant workers, and rural communities. Can you inform the committee why there was no early retirement component or a licence buy-out component in that announcement and if you, as one of the lead ministers, have those issues under consideration?

Mr. Robert Thibault: One of the concerns we had when we were closing was the question of maintenance of those communities and the livelihood of those people, so we made sure to come out quickly with a short-term package. We had some discussions on what we should be doing for those communities in the long term, but it was very important that we came out very quickly with short-term assistance. It was also agreed that the ministers responsible in Newfoundland, Labrador, and other maritime provinces, which were effected, but to a very much smaller extent, would have discussions with the communities and their provincial counterparts for long-term economic objectives. The same would happen in Quebec, led by Développement économique Canada.

Nothing is automatically excluded, anything can be discussed, and we can review it in the future, but at the start, when we looked at the question of buy-backs or early pension plans or retirements, these fishing communities had all had a chance to sell their licences in 1998 and previous years. There were a number of offers in previous years, and it was made clear in 1998 that this was the last opportunity to sell. The fishery was open, but it was a very limited fishery, a shadow of its former self. Well, it's very important to those people, they had chosen to remain, so it was difficult to make the argument for a buy-out at that time, when there are a lot of other fisheries in difficult situations throughout the Atlantic provinces and throughout the country. I wouldn't necessarily say it's completely ruled out for the future, but it's not imminent.

» (1710)

Mr. Bill Matthews: With all due respect, you shut the fishery down again last Thursday. Those who stayed in had an opportunity to fish for a while, but now you've shut it down, so that certainly changes the equation. And I ask you, as one of the lead ministers, to consider those two components with other colleagues who will need to be engaged. It's very important to the people affected.

I listened to your answer to my colleague from St. John's West about the science and the peer review. You're very much aware, as I am, that there are many questions about the research vessel surveys in 2002. Gear tear-ups led to interruptions in the survey, equipment problems caused about a 50% survey as compared to other years. Your department this time did not enter log book data from fishermen on their catch rates, which have always an integral part of the scientific model. None of this stuff was factored into the 2002 scientific model. In my view, peer review was done by people on science that was inconclusive and, with all due respect, lacked confidence. If you don't have confidence in science, you really can't make the decision you made. I know you listened to them, but you were aware of the situation, because I was in a group that discussed it with you. I appreciated the opportunity to bring those people to the meeting.

In light of those concerns about the science, why didn't you choose to heed the advice of the FRCC and implement a 3,500 tonne fishery at the least, do a thorough assessment in 2003, and then make a decision? In my view, those are very legitimate concerns about the science that made it inconclusive and caused it to not inspire confidence among the people.

Mr. Robert Thibault: When you were present for that meeting, those concerns about the science were raised. They had been raised previously when I was in Newfoundland, and I asked for them in writing and spoke with the people within my department for explanations. You were present when explanations were given again. Those were some of the concerns through which it took me some time, because I wanted answers to all those questions and I wanted confidence myself that if I made such a difficult decision, I would make it with confidence on the basis of the information. The peer review did that also. The experts from all over the world, including people from those fishing communities and some fishermen, were asking all those questions and looking at what happens if you increase mortality, if you lower the mortality figure, all the possibilities and all combinations and permutations, to see if there was risk. They came out with the consensus that the fish were in difficult circumstances, that there was a risk of removing more fish out of the equation.

And as you've pointed out very eloquently in the meetings, we couldn't do it ont the harvesting alone. That came out in all the consultations I had, that we had to take action on the seals. There was no use doing anything else if we didn't do that. We had to have the exclusion zones, we had to reduce the herd, we had to look at the no-drag areas to make improvements. So I've taken a lot of steps in those directions to give these stocks the best possible chance for recovery, and there are some signs. You heard the information I heard, the antedoctal evidence and the signs from the northern gulf that ocean conditions are improving, that the cod are in a healthier condition. Those are all very good signs. So if we have patience in the short term, we might have a recovery sooner rather than later for that particular stock.

» (1715)

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, I find in incredible that with the power you have in your department to completely shut down a fishery, as you just did recently--and I know it must have been difficult--you cannot answer two of the finest colleagues I have in Parliament who have absolutely begged you to not reduce the sea lamprey program. You have the authority to turn around and tell your department, I'm the minister, these are colleagues who represent 800,000 potential voters and millions of dollars to the economy--we do not shut the sea lamprey program down. You have the authority and the power to do that. So I ask you to do that on behalf of everyone who's made a representation to us in that regard.

Mr. Robert Thibault: It might be true that I have that authority. I'll have it as long as I don't start making decisions like that midway through a meeting. When you're looking at the funding of the department and the responsibilities we have, while it's very important to take their concerns seriously, it's very important to look at what that program does and what the effects of reduction are, it's also important that we look at all aspects, because all areas of the department are important and need the requisite funding. So to suggest that I should make a decision to spend that type of money during a meeting, I don't understand really. I don't think that's the way to do it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: With the greatest of respect, these recommendations were made in 1998. The individuals I've mentioned, my colleagues, have made personal presentations to you. This is not a new request asking you to make the decision on the spot, this is something your department has been aware of for a long, long time. You have the authority to shut the fishery down in Newfoundland, you also have the authority to keep the sea lamprey program at its current funding, and increase the funding if you so desire.

It's over 20 years now since we signed on to the Law of the Sea and we have yet to ratify it. Why?

The second question concerns the Sable Island gully. A lot of people have been waiting for protection for that gully for a long time. When is it going to happen.

Mr. Robert Thibault: The question of the Law of the Sea I hope will be settled very quickly. One of the reasons we haven't ratified it yet is that it was the feeling of the fishing communities and the provinces and a lot of people that we shouldn't until the European Community has ratified the United Nations fisheries agreement. If we sign the Law of the Sea, it might restrict our use of our Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, which is the one that was used in 1995 by Minister Tobin, and it's always good to have it in case it's needed. I was speaking with the ambassador to the European Union, and there may be ratification of the United Nations fisheries agreement soon by Europe.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: And the gully?

Mr. Robert Thibault: Oh, sorry, the gully. I hope that'll be very quick. It's being worked on, the regulations are in the process. We did the first one a couple of months ago on the thermal vents in Vancouver, which is the first one. The gully, hopefully, will be the next one that will be finished. We're having very good cooperation from the industry, oil and gas exploration. There's one company that has some leases and rights to do research very near there, and they have agreed to act as if it is enacted already and will be staying 10 kilometres away from the nearest boundary.

» (1720)

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

The folks from your riding down in Digby have asked me to again ask you to take into consideration their requests regarding the quarry up in the area you know about, the Digby Neck area. They're very concerned about what that quarry will do to lobster fishing, and they ask you to meet with them as frequently as you can, when it's possible, so they can discuss their concerns.

Also, the Council of Professional Fish Harvesters ask you to take seriously into consideration their fleet separation policy.

Finally, I know you're not going to reverse that decision you made. I heard that there are going to be make-work projects to get the people to EI. One of the greatest things you can do to keep fishermen on the water and possibly protect the resource is a 1998 recommendation we made about getting once and for all serious about ghost nets. These people can go back on the water and start working to try--I'm not sure exactly how to do it--to retrieve those ghost nets, which there must be thousands of in the water.

Mr. Robert Thibault: On the quarry, I recognize the concerns, but I think everybody has to understand--and I met with the community a number of times--that the province has made a decision that the quarry is a good use of that area, right or wrong. We come into play in two instances, when the blasting plan for the larger quarry is done, under the Environmental Assessment Act and the Fisheries Act, and as they build their dock, which we are required to look at through CEAA. That is all we can do. We can't use the Fisheries Act or the Environmental Assessment Act as a way of zoning, for land use policy. We have to give a fair hearing to the proponents of any proposal. We can't use the act at our whim to stop proposals I might not like. That wouldn't be fair treatment to the people, and it wouldn't be fair treatment to the communities either. If they don't meet the requirements of any of those acts, the proposal shouldn't go forward. I shouldn't abuse the act and force it to go through if I like a proposal. I think everybody deserves a fair hearing, and I think the community understands that very well.

We accept the principle of fleet separation. It's going to continue. As part of the policy review process, and there seems to be general agreement, though some people have concerns, we're saying we'll maintain the fleet separation. You speak to some people and fleet separation means 34 feet, to others it means 45, to others it means 65. What we are saying is that we are going to maintain the principle of fleet separation, but we are not going to completely shut out the possibility of further discussions. So if one fleet wants to change the regulations for their fleet, they have general agreement among the fleet, and it doesn't have impact on other fleets, it can be entertained by the minister. It doesn't mean it will be done, but at least you're not saying, as in the past, that it can't be considered. I have seen some fleets where it might make sense.

On ghost nets, I haven't had long thought about that. I don't know how much it would cost and how effective it would be, but it's certainly a suggestion for the future, if there's a way of reducing the number of ghost nets out there. Financial considerations will always be part of it. I don't have money within the department to do that. The program of economic development is being carried out by Economic Development Canada and HRDC, and they have to take care of those communities in the short term. I don't know if it's the best use or possible, but it's certainly something to consider.

The Chair: Minister, thank you.

We're rapidly running out of time. We have three questioners left, including your parliamentary secretary. Would it be possible for you to stay an additional 10 minutes?

Mr. Robert Thibault: Sure.

The Chair: Great.

Mr. Robert Thibault: If they're three people who haven't asked questions yet.

The Chair: Well, your parliamentary secretary hasn't, but the other two have.

Mr. Robert Thibault: I'll take the parliamentary secretary.

The Chair: I can't do it that way.

Mr. Robert Thibault: Then I can't stay.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins.

» (1725)

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, I'm amazed that you've recently made a purchase of this Liv Viking and that you don't have anyone with you who can give us the cost of it and the cost of the refit. In the last little while has somebody had their memory jogged? Can they give us a figure on that?

Mr. Robert Thibault: I don't know that all the figures are available yet. There is still work to be done. The work hasn't started, we haven't paid for it, it still has to be modified, but we'll discover exactly where we are, what we have, and let you know at a future date.

Mr. John Cummins: At one point I understand there was a sole-source contract let for the Freedom 90. How much money has been spent on this search for a replacement hovercraft?

Mr. Robert Thibault: I don't know. We don't have a figure.

The Chair: Can you get it?

Mr. Robert Thibault: We should able to.

Mr. John Cummins: I have to express my upset at this issue. This is something like the SARS matter at the Toronto airport. You're giving public safety in Vancouver a lower priority than you're giving ice-breaking on the St. Lawrence, and I find that absolutely outrageous, and you should know that. I'm sure there are many people who are going to be very upset with your response on these issues today.

Mr. Robert Thibault: I think people will recognize that I had not been in the department very long when I announced that we would be getting a second hovercraft for Vancouver and we started the activities to get one. They are not off the shelf, they are not everywhere, ready to be picked up. I have to find one, I have to get the modifications done to it, I have to get it delivered, get the training and whatever is necessary, such as spare parts. I have made the commitment to the people of Vancouver that we will get the second one in our recapitalization plan, and I got the funding to do the recapitalization plan in the last budget. We are getting a second hovercraft, brand new, like the Siyay. People are telling me it will do a great job for the people, so I think they will be very happy about that.

Mr. John Cummins: Earlier I asked you about your intentions with regard to the aboriginal commercial fishing licences. As you are no doubt aware, that matter is now before the provincial court in Vancouver and has been for some time. We are anticipating a decision by the court prior to the commencement of the fishing season for the commercial fleet, towards the end of June. If the court says the aboriginal fishing strategy and the pilot sales programs are an infringement on the equality rights of other fishermen, would you commit yourself to ending race-based fisheries and agree not to include private sales arrangements in treaties?

Mr. Robert Thibault: The question is very hypothetical, and I don't think it would be right for me to comment in any way on any matter that is before the court or try to guess the outcome. I think I will let the court do its work.

Mr. John Cummins: Last year this whole issue was very problematic for British Columbia. The last time we had a disaster, if you will, on the Fraser was in 1994. John Fraser was asked by the previous minister, Minister Tobin, to do a report, which he did in the spring of 1995. This past winter, as you mentioned in your talk, there was an internal report by your department that really has not been well received by many in the industry. There is concern that some of the real issues that should have been addressed weren't. How do you intend to satisfy fishermen that the Fraser River and the salmon fishery on the west coast will be more appropriately managed this year than last year or the year before? What assurances can you give to fishermen, and why should they accept those assurances at this time?

Mr. Robert Thibault: There was a lot of disappointment last year about a perceived lost opportunity, but I think, if you look at how the decisions were made and why, they are very well supported. The potential that couldn't be capitalized on did create a lot of discouragement. For that reason, I called for a post-season review. We had a very good group. We had people representing all sectors of the industry and the communities, conservationists, aboriginal fishers, and commercial fishers. They came out with a report and 14 recommendations. I accepted them all, and we are putting them into practice now. We are working with them, we are consulting. They came up with recommendations they thought would work for management of the fishery in the future, and we are going in that direction.

» (1730)

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I won’t use up the five minutes. I simply want to ask two very precise questions. I have already asked one in the house and I never got an answer. The urgency concerns Cusimer of Mont-Louis, the harbour for small boats. I would like to know when we will be informed of this year’s plan for small boat harbour.

Mr. Robert Thibault: I do not know exactly the date of the vote, but I can check the status on the issue and get back to you.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: The other question is in reference to the decrease in sentinel fishing in the golf, and in particular that of bottom feeders. You have told us that this Department upheld a scientific vocation, but that it was in a somewhat sad state of affairs as there was never enough money. It seems that there will be a 30% decrease in this year’s budget for sentinel fishing, in other words the collaborative work between fishermen and biologists. I would like an explanation for this.

Mr. Robert Thibault: For us, it is important to evaluate the way in which our resources are being used. Following an evaluation of this program, I have been informed that even if less money were to be invested in the project, results would remain the same. The excess will be used to profit these people. This will form part of the 6 million dollar resources allocated to the issue of exclusion zones for seals used for studies relating to the relation between weight and predators. Thus, the money will remain invested in this matter, but it will be used differently. It is useless to spend $6 million on a program that may run for $4.5 million. I do not remember the exact numbers for this program.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: $3.5 million.

Mr. Robert Thibault: OK.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: OK, that’s fine.

Le président: Thank you.

Mr. Farrah.

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.): Thank you Mr. Chairman.

My question will be short as we have already gone passed the hour. Also, I did not want to elaborate too extensively in telling the Minister he is doing an excellent job. One would most probably say that it is simply because I am a Parliamentary Secretary, but that’s what I honestly think and I would like to express it.

On another note, my only question relates to consultation work conducted to study fishing, namely FRCC, which is doing a very good work, in my opinion. However, keeping in mind what occurred with cod, where scientific advice suggested a moratorium while they recommended 3,000 tons for example, do you believe that the consultative system should be reviewed or reevaluated?

I am not doubting anyone and do not wish for people to panic because these are good people who work well in a domain where consultation is required, but sometimes this may cause hope to a certain extent. There is often a gap between what scientists believe and what may be achieved practically. Often, people do not understand that we should simply be going to the FRCC.

So, without taking anything away from their work which I feel is excellent, do you not think that maybe we could initiate a new consultative approach which could be more beneficial to both the Department and the population for whom these decisions are crucial for the future?

Mr. Robert Thibault: That is an excellent question.

We have conducted an evaluation of the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council. In other words we have studied this somewhat, and the council is currently studying the recommendations that were made during the study. I am awaiting their suggestions.

Given that there is to be an upcoming change in presidency, this is a good time to reorient ourselves if it proves indeed necessary. Mr. Woodman will tender his resignation prior to delivering the last report. We have invited him to stay-on for an additional three months, which he has graciously accepted. It will be a difficult three months given the situation with cod but he has done a good job.

Thus, if we want to reorient ourselves this is a good time to do so.

In my opinion, both advice and consultation serve a purpose. When a report is tabled, it is important to not simply focus on the conclusions. People need to recognize this, as well as how we got to these conclusions and other potential reasons. This is why we have come to a different decision than they had.

They, in addition, do not carry the same responsibilities as I do. They may make recommendations, but they know that, in the end, I am the one that must make the final decision: The buck stops here. Therefore, if the decision includes risk, it is my responsibility to make a different decision. All the information included in the report is valuable and many of its suggestions have been applied. It is impossible for me however to authorize in good faith the fishing of 3,500 tons.

» (1735)

Mr. Georges Farrah: OK. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Minister, thank you very much for appearing and for staying a little longer. It's greatly appreciated by the committee. Those people who may be watching this committee I'm sure are amazed at the variety of subject matter that came up over the last two hours. It must be absolutely amazing to people just how complex the fisheries and oceans portfolio is. We certainly appreciate your candid, frank, and in most cases, concise answers.

I would end by saying our committee is currently preparing a report on invasive species. While we haven't come to any conclusions yet, I think it is reasonable and fair to say the committee is very much concerned, as are all witnesses, that there be continued and stable funding at the current level or greater for the sea lamprey program. I know you've heard many people around the table say this, but as the chair, I want to reiterate it.

Once again, thank you so much for your consideration in coming here.

Mr. Robert Thibault: Thank you for the invitation and for your attention. I can assure you that your members who have spoken about sea lamprey, like yourself, are very good lobbyists.

The Chair: Thank you.

We're adjourned.