:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's certainly a pleasure to be back to review my department's operations. As always, I'll keep my remarks very brief. Those of you who've known me over the years on this committee know I say very little.
You've already introduced my officials. We do have some other people here for the simple reason that usually at committee people have technical questions, questions pertinent to certain divisions of the department, and we try to have people here who can provide an answer. Any we can't provide, we certainly will get to you very quickly.
The last time we met we discussed in some detail a few of the concerns you had about supposed cutbacks in funding and personnel. I trust that between the meeting and the subsequent questions put to my officials last week, you now have the answers you require.
For the record, let me emphasize that overall funding for my department has increased, not decreased. You might have seen that I have had to clarify this fact with the media, since they had picked up particular similar reports, likely stemming from a misunderstanding on how the budgetary and planning cycles work.
This increase includes an additional $99 million to improve critical services in science, fisheries and fish habitat management, and coast guard programs, all of which we can touch on in more detail today.
In British Columbia, for instance, we have increased the number of fisheries enforcement staff from 162 to 176 and have added 12 new habitat monitors, allowing our fisheries officers to focus on their work on the Fraser and in the Pacific coastal areas. That in itself is significant, not only the increase in direct protection officers, but by providing the new habitat officers, our enforcement people can now do the job they were sent out to do rather than having to worry about other aspects.
We have further deployed 27 fishery officer recruits across the Atlantic provinces. This is the first significant recruitment of fishery officers since 2003, and additional recruitment and training is planned for 2007.
That said, there are still changes. How do we protect and promote the commercial fishery both from an ecological and an economic perspective? I don't believe the two to be mutually exclusive, but it is a tremendous balancing act to ensure that both our fish stocks and our stakeholders survive and prosper.
As much as we would like quick fixes, that's just not possible. But that does not mean the situation of the fishery isn't urgent. It is. The economic value of the fishery to Canada is considerable. With exports worth $4.3 billion in 2005 and a recreational fishery—this might just open up eyes, I know it certainly did mine—valued at more than $7 billion. The fishery employs over 100,000 people and remains crucial to the economic prosperity of coastal Canada. But the economic and ecological pressures on the resource also remain intense and challenging.
The fishery must change or it will not survive. It means getting good conservation right, getting governance right, and getting the economics and the infrastructure right.
That leads me to our fisheries renewal agenda. We continue to work hard to cooperate and consult with our provincial and territorial colleagues. As you may recall, last May I participated in the premiers summit in Newfoundland and Labrador, where we discussed a cross-section of complex fisheries issues. That consultation didn't end here. What has now become part of a fishing industry renewal initiative continues as we speak. It will focus on policy renewal and industry restructuring. A follow-up series of consultations will take place with harvesters, processors, and plant workers, and we anticipate their recommendations by year's end.
Incidentally, I also met with my other Atlantic counterparts last July in Charlottetown to discuss the plight of the Northumberland Strait fishers, and just last week I met with my colleagues in Quebec to discuss their unique concerns. The topics on the table included commercialization, processing, and harvesting. We committed at those meetings to identify and implement whatever short-term solutions are possible before the 2007 season.
Before I leave the matter of federal-provincial cooperation, let me share with you two initiatives we have undertaken, one dealing with conservation and the other with economics.
We are committed to conserving and restoring wild Atlantic salmon and its habitat on the Atlantic coast. To that end, we are moving forward on the Atlantic salmon endowment fund, as I announced earlier this month in Fredericton. The fund itself is a $30 million conditional grant that will be invested, and the income earned will be used to support projects that contribute to salmon conservation and restoration.
On the economic side of the fisheries equation, in late October I and my Newfoundland and Labrador counterparts joined representatives of Cooke Aquaculture to announce more than $155 million in funding to establish an aquaculture development project. The DFO share is $4.5 million and comes by way of our aquaculture collaborative research and development program.
This project is expected to triple the province's salmon production and create over 2,000 full-time, year-round direct jobs as well as additional indirect jobs in the aquaculture processing, supply, and service sectors. I should mention it's in the riding of my colleague from Burin--Burgeo along the coast, where they've been hit extremely hard over the last couple of years, and it could be turned around in that area. This investment is exactly the type of shot in the arm this area needs and will create the critical mass necessary to position the aquaculture industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Of course, cooperation and consultation are no less important on the international front. I was in Iceland and Norway two weeks ago to speak to the never-ending fight against illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing in the North Atlantic. We also discussed how to ensure decisions are based on science and how NAFO might integrate precautionary- and ecosystem-based approaches into its decision-making. And we had lengthy conversations on the fishery we share, and that's the seal fishery.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about science renewal, our oceans agenda, small craft harbours, and coast guard modernization.
The need for sound scientific advice is critical to my department and our government. We have invested an additional $15.5 million in science to get a clearer picture of what's happening to fish and fish habitat. We believe in the role of sound science as a way to better inform our fisheries habitat and oceans management decisions.
DFO will continue to lead the implementation of the government-wide oceans action plan to advance integrated oceans management in Canada's Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic oceans. To that end, the department established regional implementation committees in each of the OAP priority areas and I announced the smart bay demonstration project to showcase Canada's oceans technology expertise.
We also recognize the importance of providing commercial fishers with solid infrastructure through the small craft harbours program. I will continue working to maintain this important program, while realizing there are many funding pressures.
Last, Mr. Chairman, I want to ensure that the people who work so hard in the coast guard to keep us safe have what they need to do their jobs. We have already increased funding by $45 million per year, in addition to the more than $270 million dedicated to fleet renewal. And we will proceed with the aids to navigation for the 21st century initiative to provide the right combination of conventional and electronic aids to help stakeholders and members of the public safely navigate our waters.
I mentioned a couple of hundred jobs, to start with, on the south coast, but we've been told estimates of anywhere from 2,000 to 5,000--even up to 8,000--in aquaculture in Atlantic Canada, and particularly on the south coast of Newfoundland. That's pretty positive stuff.
Thank you for listening, Mr. Chair. We would be pleased to take any questions.
:
Generally it is, and most of the players are the same; for instance, a number of the people who were nominated for the board.
The thing is, this was talked about in theory and no real money was put on the table, and we brought the money. I was serious when I said that.
Other than that, we didn't go in to try to change the world at all. We worked closely with people involved with salmon—people like Bill Taylor, as you know, on the east coast, and others who have led the fight in the different provinces. It's the people who met us.
The first time I heard about this was when you, I guess, and the chair and others were touring Atlantic Canada, and we had presentations on the need to do something for wild salmon. Out of that, it was the push of the committee, undoubtedly, that got this idea moving. There was the fact that we had done it on the west coast, and it's just as important on the east coast. We followed through on that. We picked it up immediately after we came in and got it through the process so that the work can now begin.
Other than that, we haven't really made any changes or asked the committee or those involved to do anything different, except do the work they want to do. We're just here to help them.
:
No, Mr. Chair, but that's a very good topic to discuss.
First, you started by saying that we're seeing an increased presence and extra attention being paid to the coast guard. I give the credit for that to this committee and some of the people around this table. I believe it was the major study that was done. There are people here today from both sides of the coast guard. We have the commissioner, and we have the head of one of the major unions in the audience. These people realize that it was a collective effort. We had very good cooperation as we went around. People came forth and laid their cards on the table. Our report to the government and the push we made collectively got the ball rolling, and we've been able to keep it rolling.
As we said then, the coast guard in this country is an icon, one that has tremendous potential. We have actually increased our presence on the Nose and Tail and the Flemish Cap. In the meantime, we are increasing our presence generally. Right now, we have eight smaller boats that are going to be built. Some are in Canada. We have some larger boats being built.
When we talk about armed presence, this is not from our shop or from coast guard; we're hearing that from DND. Let me just say that all of us collectively--and I'm not just talking about government members, I think I speak for everybody here--realize we need to strengthen our presence in the north. But we don't need to reinvent the wheel about what's needed. We can actually pull out a map that shows, as we speak today, seven or eight icebreakers in the north that are doing the job in relation to the communications challenge, the search and rescue, and scientific work. The coast guard is called upon to do an awful lot. We can do a lot more.
I don't see any plan of attack from the north, certainly not in the near future. But if we need a presence at any one time, working with DND to coordinate activities and maybe using some of the coast guard boats can easily be done.
Basically I'm saying yes, we need a presence, and we will have an increased presence. If the north is going to be opened up and developed, I believe the coast guard has a major part to play. But this is an add-on. Some of the money you see here, such as $275 million-plus for repairing the fleet and moving forward, is not to replace or substitute anything; it's to enhance. Certainly as long as I'm around anyway, the attention being paid to the Nose and Tail and the Flemish Cap and offshore Atlantic Canada won't be lessened.
:
I am well aware of Mr. Blais' interest in the small craft harbours program from being on the committee with him. Certainly from every meeting I attended, whether we're talking about small craft harbours, whether we're talking about fish generally, or whether we're talking about chicken farming, Mr. Blais will bring in the wharf, as he should, because he represents a fishing area.
In relation to Quebec, I would say to him that the meetings were set up in Quebec by the minister of fisheries from Quebec. He did a tremendous job, Mr. Chair, and we had a great meeting.
The meeting was not set up for me or for the provincial minister to go and give out a pile of information to solve all the problems. The meeting was called so that industry, everybody involved, would come to discuss openly the concern, the challenges that we have to face, and to go forward so we would have input into what needs to be done to outlying areas where expenditure will be needed, to outlying areas where we can consolidate, where we can improve, where we can collectively come up with an ocean-to-plate strategy. So it wasn't the time to go in to make any announcements.
Let me say in relation to the funding—and I might come back to Mr. Cuzner's answer—we are well aware, and nobody is more aware than I am, of the need for investment in small craft harbours. We are, like every other department, working on putting our requests forward for funding. Are we going to consider looking for more money for small craft harbours? Absolutely. Yes, we are. Will we get it? We're quite confident that we'll get more money; we have to. We can talk about the fishery, we can talk about the market, we can talk about harvesting, we can talk about processing, but you're not going to get out to catch a fish if you don't a wharf to leave from. So we have to be sensible there.
Consequently, Mr. Chair, yes, we are not at all forgetting the fact that the small craft harbours program is an important section. Nor are we forgetting the fact that not only does it have to be maintained.... If we're going to just maintain what we have, enhance, and if we're going to be able to set a framework to operate what we see as a solid base for a solid industry, then infrastructure has to be looked upon as a key component, and that is generally where we're headed.
And again, welcome to the minister and officials to the committee. We certainly all appreciate your being here to address the concerns of the committee and the community, which is very much engaged in our oceans and fisheries issues.
I am glad personally, Minister, to hear that we're investing more money in science. There is a desperate need in that area, and I understand there is about a $15.5 million increase in investment in that area, and there is an increased investment in habitat and enforcement, which we feel is extremely important.
I personally like to see the habitat improvements that we've had in our area. Some salmon enhancement programs we've been having have been very good in improving returns to local rivers and streams, so we appreciate the participation of DFO in those projects.
And also the investment in small craft harbours is appreciated, because we certainly have big needs in that area after 30 years of infrastructure being let go.
In the science area, a question that has come up recently involves marine protected areas. I and someone from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society who was visiting the Hill recently had a meeting in my office with a Dr. Manfred Krautter concerning a rather interesting discovery of a type of glass sponge that is unique to the west coast of Vancouver Island and the coast of British Columbia. I wonder, in the discussions about marine protected areas, is the department looking at the glass sponges and the uniqueness to the coastal area and how that might impact our programs regarding both the fishing activities and the marine protected areas that are under discussion?
:
Mr. Chair, again through you to Mr. Lunney, I thank you for the question.
Habitat is extremely important and becoming much more important. I think with the new bill, when it's tabled, you will see that a lot of attention is being paid to habitat and the ability to be able to work with many others or have much more freedom to work with others.
I've been meeting with most of the provincial governments throughout the country and the ministers involved--the ministers of environment, fisheries, water, stewardship, etc. Everyone has major concerns about habitat. We have been working with our own Department of the Environment federally, with Natural Resources, etc., but also with the provinces to talk about coordination--eliminating duplication, eliminating costs, eliminating timeframe, i.e., waiting for somebody else to do what you would probably be doing yourself again afterwards. We are talking about proper coordination to bring people around the table to save time, effort, money, and get a lot more done.
In relation to the marine protected areas, again, with the ones we have been involved in, response has been phenomenal. However, it can't be done with the heavy hand of government just coming in and drawing circles, as might have been tried sometimes in the past where we got a lot of push-back from the local people and fishermen, etc. These have to be done in consultation with the local areas and based on good scientific advice.
We are all for protecting the habitat. We talked about that even at the international level. However, we also must remember that we have people who make a living from the marine environment, and there has to be a balance. It's great to say that the easiest way to protect the ocean habitat is to close everything down, but that would certainly affect an awful lot of people and an awful lot of communities and the economic future of the country. What we try to do is work with the groups, the agencies, the communities of interest involved.
On the one on the west coast, the glass sponge reef has certainly come up, and maybe somebody can give us more specifics. Mr. Murray has some more specific information on that.
:
Thank you very much. I'm sure there will be many people interested in our looking at it, especially unique habitat and species. We all have an interest in seeing unique areas protected while we go on with our other activities.
We don't have our regional director for British Columbia, Mr. Sprout, with us here today. Mr. Bevan, perhaps you would be able to help us with this.
I note some concerns specific to my riding--a big run on the Alberni Inlet, both sockeye and chinook. The sports sector is particularly important to this community of Port Alberni. It is one of the salmon capitals of the world, you know. We do have a competing community on the east side of the island, Campbell River, that claims that title as well. The sporties in particular are concerned about the chinook.
This past year we had this big salmon derby, which is a very big economic driver in the community, but the commercial chinook fishery opened prior to the sports one. Frankly, the fishermen were out in those boats with high hopes, and the catch wasn't very good. Even though conservation methods, our targets, were hit, the sporties actually missed their targets by 50% in the last two years, and that does have quite an economic impact. I just wanted you to take note of that. I wonder whether you could look into that at Parliament, whether or not you're taking consideration of that.
Also, they're asking for a multi-sectoral sockeye committee to review the catchments there, because again I think there is a need to look at the escapement targets, which were way beyond what was anticipated.
:
Mr. Chair, there are a couple of little points here that I think we have to be very conscious about. I fully understand that, and we can argue that when we look at the value of the fishery to the country, we look at the value of the recreational fishery. However, there are two things.
Number one, when we're concerned that there might be too many escapements, if we're going to have a fishery of the future, conservation has to come first. If it happens when we break down who got what.... Our first aim in the fishery is conservation. How many fish do we have to leave in the water to spawn in order to build our stocks? That's first. After that, then we have food, social, ceremonial, and then commercial, recreational, etc. However, conservation has to come first, and if we're going to make a mistake, let's make a mistake by leaving a little bit more rather than less, because we'll pay the price down the road.
In relation to commercial versus recreational fishing, this argument goes on. From a purely personal perspective, I come from a family and a boat where you either caught some fish or you didn't eat; it was as simple as that. So we have the commercial fishermen. You can throw names around of international corporations, etc., but generally for the person in the boat catching the fish, that is his only source of living. In terms of the person who comes in and maybe leaves more money in the local town to catch three salmon than this fisherman makes, that's a greater argument.
Until we can find some way for that fisherman in the boat to be able to sell each salmon for whatever value to somebody else...that's pretty hypothetical at this stage. Commercial fisheries exist because for 500 years people have fished in this country and have made a living. If we're going to take that living away from them, somebody had better come up with some good ideas as to what the fellows in the boat are going to do before we start making major shifts in any other direction.
Welcome to you, Minister, and to your esteemed officials. It's great to have you here. It's too bad that our friend and colleague Mr. Cummins, couldn't be here to liven things up a little bit as well, but I'm sure he'll be back.
But to try to liven things up a little bit, Mr. Minister, I will not direct this question to you, but to your deputy minister.
This committee has been engaged in a serious study on vessel safety and DFO's boat length requirements. We had expert witnesses appear from DFO as well as from Transport Canada on that topic. At the time, we heard testimony that basically there were two separate issues, and while there was some collaboration between Transport Canada and DFO, largely they were not necessarily linked or related and the two departments were acting independently. That was generally the consensus of the testimony that was given. Nine days later we understood, as a result of hearing expert testimony from industry stakeholders in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, that the night before there had been a memorandum of understanding signed between Transport Canada and DFO to collaborate on vessel safety and boat length requirements.
Do you think it was appropriate, Mr. Murray, that this parliamentary committee was not informed that the memorandum of understanding was being drafted or being considered and that its draft contents were not divulged to parliamentary members?
:
Perhaps I can add to that.
This has been an issue coming out of this very committee over the years. We have always argued about restrictions put on boats. All of us have described the different boats going out and their lengths, and all of us have always questioned their safety. We've had a couple of incidents in Newfoundland where certainly the stability was in question.
Now, stability can be in question either because the operators don't know how to properly use it or because the design is wrong. You can argue that until the cows come home. The thing is that we probably have boats going to sea that I certainly wouldn't go across the harbour in, and that's a bit scary.
Having said that, we have been working on that right from day one. In fact, coming out of the summit meetings, we probably would have had something out publicly that we would be talking about today in relation to flexibility, etc. However, in summit meetings, where we're bringing all of industry to the table, it's much better to let them have their spin too than have the made-in-Ottawa solution, even though our solutions are usually made through committees and information that comes from the field.
The MOU you're talking about actually isn't something that was just slapped together because this became an issue. It's been on the go for quite some time. In fact, I had it for some time--
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Given that we have with us today the Minister and the Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard Commissioner, I would like to take this opportunity to come back to another issue. We spoke about this during your last appearance with us, Minister. You expressed your concern and your good intentions with respect to marine safety.
At the time, I told you that in Havre-Saint-Pierre, a file had been mounted at the request of the fishers' association and that of the administrators of the marina. Fishing vessels in the area of Sept-Îles, Havre-Saint-Pierre and the Lower North Shore start their fishing season on April 1st. However, the coast guard only becomes operational by the third week of April. That doesn't make sense. The boats go out to sea, the fishermen get ready for their fishing season and yet, the coast guard, that has the infrastructure and the boat, does not have the necessary staff to intervene in cases of emergencies or catastrophes. They are completely absent.
Minister, I have the support of mayors of municipalities, organizations, fishermen, associations and marina people, everyone. There is unanimity. We all know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and that is why we want you to put your words into action. All you have to do is come to an agreement with your Coast Guard Commissioner on that three-week period, in order to ensure the safety of our fishermen and to avoid a catastrophe. If something happens, the department or the coast guard will be responsible.
I put together this file towards the end of the previous government's last mandate. You were informed of this, as was the coast guard and the new commissioner. What we are asking, on behalf of fishermen, of those who can intervene out at sea, is simple. We're not asking for infrastructure, or for additional equipment, but simply that the coast guard be ready to intervene in cases of accident or catastrophes as of April 1st, that is, when the fishing vessels and fishermen go out to sea. This is simply a budget that would cover three additional weeks of operation.
The current situation reminds me of a municipality that would decide to open one of its public pools on July 1st but wouldn't hire any lifeguards, those responsible for safety, until July 22nd. That doesn't make sense.
Minister, you are the one responsible. You talked about safety. Your deputy ministers confirmed that this was one of your concerns. We are simply asking you to direct the people responsible for marine safety in Havre-Saint-Pierre to work from April 1st to December 1st in order to be available if necessary. I am asking this of you and I am raising it again at the request of fishermen. No one would want a catastrophe to happen and for the coast guard to be absent simply out of negligence or the lack of a minimal amount of funding.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Minister, I first of all want to thank publicly Faith Scattolon down on the east coast. I recently had a tour of BIO, my fourth tour in nine years, and it was extremely well done. The staff down there did a great job. One thing they impressed upon me was the fact that science, even though there was a slight increase this year, shows that it may not have the accelerated increases that we're all looking for. So if you are going to cabinet asking for more money for science, I know on behalf on the people at BIO, they would greatly appreciate it in that regard.
I have a couple of questions for you, sir. If you don't have the answers now, perhaps it would be possible to get them later. It would be interesting to know the number of habitat enforcement officers for the central Arctic region. Have they decreased over the last few years, or are they staying the same?
Also, on lighthouses, I know there's a divestiture of lighthouses ongoing. The lighthouse associations in Nova Scotia and British Columbia, for example, are looking to ensure, if at all possible, that their organizations would have first crack at maintaining a part of our history.
You talked about the preservation and conservation of wild salmon. I've spoken to mining companies, and in most cases around the country, when mining companies are in an area, they will build a separate tailings pond. It's basically a hole. They'll line it, they'll put water in it, and then they'll put the tailings in there.
As you know from a question I asked you earlier regarding a duck pond and lake near the Exploits River, which both flow into the river, there's quite a concern by environmental groups and fishing groups that the allowance of these lakes be turned into tailings ponds through schedule 2. Plus, there are lakes right across the country that are next in line, and there's a concern that we're allowing the mining companies a cheaper way of out it, instead of developing their own tailings ponds, by using a natural water system for their tailings ponds.
Do you not think this may contradict what you said about conservation? If we are using the precautionary principle, shouldn't the mining companies do what they do in most cases and set up their own, instead of using a lake for their tailings systems?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Manning.
On the overfishing issue, again, when we talked about infrastructure, I guess, or the coast guard, habitat, and the Fraser River, all of these issues were dealt with, and a lot of push was put on by the former committee, and none more so than for overfishing. It was an issue introduced, I'm sure, over the years, but was certainly reinvigorated the very first day we sat on this committee. It went through debates, it went through motions in the House, it went through all kinds of discussion.
We said we would deal with overfishing. People say, you know, you say one thing on one side of the House, and you get on the other side and you say something different. I've made it clear. Anything I've said when I was a member of this committee--and you can dig out any Hansard that covered the committee, I haven't changed my mind one little bit. I'm saying the same thing today.
Have we done something about overfishing? Yes, we have. We have added to the resource, to the surveillance and so on, of the Nose and Tail and the Flemish Cap from an aerial surveillance point of view to an oceans point of view, something that had been started by the previous government. In fact, a fair amount of work had been done by the previous government in that area. What we did was something that we had always said could be done.
:
In order to stop overfishing in international waters, we said that we need cooperation. We always said there were other countries that believed the same as we did, if somebody had the leadership and coordination to do it.
On the efforts by our people, when I say “our people”, I mean it's the people from our province who were at NAFO, our officials who were at NAFO, and our own political people who were at NAFO this year. We spent weeks, from the first day I became minister until the NAFO meeting, planning how we would turn around NAFO. We did, and I won't get into the spirit of NAFO. People think they were insignificant changes, but look at what's there and look at what happens on the first of January.
We carried it further, Mr. Chair.
We took all kinds of flack from environmental groups, during the last couple of months, about Canada's stand on bottom trawling. It's the same stand the former government had, because we realized that dealing with one little aspect of technology doesn't do anything, particularly when what people want you to do is completely unenforceable.
We were looking at a major sustainable fisheries resolution that solidified the gains we had made at NAFO. By taking the middle-of-the-road position, with the help of some others, including Australia, we brought those polarized around one little paragraph in an 80-paragraph resolution to the centre point. We now have a major sustainable fisheries resolution going to the UN that is supported by the 100-plus countries and commits to deal with the very things for which we have been asking for years.
Have we made a major headway in dealing with overfishing, misreporting, and all the other activities, and in dealing with those who step outside the line? Yes, Mr. Chair, we certainly have.
How do we know? Well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I think we'll very shortly see some of that.
:
It's a pretty good question, Mr. Chair.
In fact, I've visited P.E.I. several times since I've been minister. I would say I've met with representatives of all sectors of the fishery. I toured a lot of the fishing enterprises, looked at a lot of the small craft harbours in the area, and visited plants.
One thing that's evident in P.E.I., which is the same in Newfoundland and certainly in Quebec, is that we have areas in the province where people who are dependent on the fishery are having a rough time. We also have areas in P.E.I., like the north side, as you know, where they've done very well and are doing very well.
When there is a problem in the industry, we always go back to the old saying by Parzival Copes years ago of too many fishermen chasing too few fish. That again might be true.
We have three options, Mr. Chair. One, we can take more people out to suit a dwindling resource. The second thing we can do is deal with the dwindling resource to see why it is dwindling and try to improve the resource to suit the numbers of people who are trying to make a living. The third is to let others get involved in doing just that, and it's what we've been doing.
It's why we had a major meeting in P.E.I. to deal with the Northumberland Strait, where most of the problems are occurring, for all kinds of reasons. We brought in the other provinces that are directly involved to collectively put our heads together, as we're doing in Newfoundland and as we are now doing in Quebec, getting the people who are directly involved to come up with some of the solutions.
Is government going to solve all the problems with government programs or buyouts? We tried that before. It didn't work, and industry and the people involved will tell you that. A lot of the solutions have to come from the people involved. It will be a consolidation and a cooperation that is coordinated with government leadership and help. There's no doubt about it; we are going to have to be involved.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So there are really no short-term solutions. That's a problem for the fishermen.
I have to address small craft harbours for a moment, because I mightn't get a chance from my colleagues here to say another word.
Mr. Minister, you realize that in 2005 they felt, and you felt too, that they needed $470 million to put the wharves that we are responsible for back in shape. Those are 2005 figures. It's my understanding that when you approach government, it's not going to be those kinds of figures that you're going to be looking for. I think it's vitally important. Looking at the financial situation of the day and looking at the financial situation when the $100 million was put in over five years, those are two different days. So I urge you, please, on behalf of the fishermen, to make sure you ask for an adequate amount of money, when the money is there, in order to make sure the wharves are put back in proper shape.
Also, Mr. Minister, on the regulations—and I know it has been addressed here—I very much hope that you and Transport Canada will come before this committee and not have these new regulations put to us and the fishermen. I know we have to deal with safety issues, but we also have to have input from fishermen.
Sometimes—for example, throwing the big males back—it's a problem.
:
Thank you very much for that question. In answering it, I'll answer the part of the question Mr. Manning asked that I didn't get to.
Again it was a unanimous recommendation from the committee, because we believed it was the right and proper thing to do. To me, the summer was a tremendous success. It did a couple of things. It gave us a very good idea of the concentrations of inshore codfish after rebuilding the base stocks. It gave a tremendous amount of people a feeling they hadn't had for years. They could finally get on the water again, where they grew up, and experience what a lot of us have experienced over the years, from the older people--and I've heard from a lot of them--to the very young. Older people said they were so delighted to let their grandson or granddaughter experience what it was like to be on the water and catch fish. These things are very important. But we have to remind ourselves that this can only continue as long as the resource is stable.
We're in the process now of analyzing the information we got on concentrations, size, migratory patterns, etc., in order to see--to answer the other part of Mr. Manning's question--if we can have a similar type of fishery next year. If you asked the Newfoundland members here, they would certainly agree that they got a lot more positive comments from people on this initiative than negative ones.
When we analyze the information we have, we'll know where we're going. We had 100% cooperation. Very few people abused the system. I think we came in under the amount we had allocated. If it turns out to be a failure, the amount was so small that even though it might have stymied growth, or whatever, it certainly wouldn't have done irreparable harm. So we really didn't have too many pangs of conscience over taking the chance on this initiative.
We'll know very shortly if the stocks are growing enough and have grown enough to be able to maintain this type of initiative on an annual basis.
:
Part of the challenge the department has faced for the last few years is actually living within our means while addressing recommendations coming from various sources. Certainly this committee has been quite vocal in making known the needs of the coast guard, the need for fishery officers, the need for science and scientists, and so on. It's a bit of a balancing act to try to move forward in a manner that puts the resources where Canada and Canadians think they should be.
In terms of the specifics of those numbers, we could get back to you with an analysis, but certainly we are trying to increase, for example, fishery officers. That increase in B.C. still has to be followed up with boots on the ground. We've just graduated one class. There are two more groups of fishery officers going through. We would aim for 30 per class. The first element of those will go to B.C. I think the second tranche will go largely to Newfoundland and Labrador.
Very definitely, the transformational funding, the $99 million, is focused on core delivery and not on administration. So an overall number like that could represent reductions in administrative support staff or whatever, but I can give a more detailed analysis of that.
I think we owe Mr. Stoffer an answer to an earlier question on the habitat program. I can tell you what we have increased in B.C. and so on. We have added some fishery officers over where we were going, and some additional habitat monitors in central and Arctic. I think the issue of where the habitat biologist will land, in light of these increases and decreases, is something that we owe you a detailed response on. So perhaps we could go away and come back with a detailed analysis of those numbers.
Certainly, to be clear, the minister's direction has been crystal clear. He wants to see more fishery officers, and he wants to see more science and more scientists, more money on the coast guard and more money on coast guard vessel time. But we have to live within our budget, so there would be some reductions. Actually, in the last three years we've reduced the department in overall terms by more than 300 FTEs to try to move money from salaries to actual service delivery.
:
Thank you for that, Mr. Murray.
To the minister, in your statement you alluded to the aquaculture infusion of funds in the south coast, to Cooke Aquaculture, by your department and the provincial government, which is tremendous news. I want to thank your department and you for your interest in that.
I know you've been quite involved with Cooke Aquaculture, so I applaud your efforts for a region that is very economically depressed as a result of diminished cod stocks, particularly, but also other diminished fish resources as well. No doubt, this will have a big impact on that region of the south coast, with the closure of the Harbour Breton plant by Fishery Products International, the closure of the Fortune plant by Fishery Products International, ongoing negotiations between Fishery Products International and the FFAW regarding the reopening--hopefully--of the Marystown groundfish plant.
My question is--and I asked you this some time ago--even though we're going to see aquaculture farm fish there, which will make a difference, if indeed negotiations fail--which we hope they don't, we hope they resolve themselves quickly--between FPI and the union, there's a tremendous amount of groundfish resources that are allocated to FPI that have not been utilized for a significant period of time, and really that could complement the farm fish for the communities that have traditionally used this groundfish quota.
So would you share with the committee what your thoughts are on this in view of the length of time it's been since those groundfish quotas were harvested? There doesn't seem to be a resolution. I'm wondering if you could share with the committee your thoughts on this.
:
I'm glad you raised that question, Mr. Blais, because I believe this is another area where our views and our concerns are similar.
In relation to the quotas, do you want me to tell you what I think myself or what is practical? As we speak, we are assessing what happened last year—the change in the climate, etc., and if it had any major effect on the seal herds. We have a long-term plan, which we've basically made public, of certain levels where we would do certain things. In fact, I'm informed there's a meeting in January with industry, and we talk about the quota, the TAC, and all that kind of stuff. So this is coming to the fore.
We have to be very conscious of what's happening. We have a declining fish stock in certain areas. I think the stocks overall have basically leveled off, but in certain areas it's up and down, depending on the statistics you talk about.
Where we see a diminishing groundfish stock in particular, and we see a ballooning predation group, seals in this case, all different types of seal.... There are different problems in P.E.I., where they're having some real problems—and Nova Scotia also—that are complicated by the fact that the seals are in areas where it's difficult to hunt them. I'm seeing seals at the mouths of rivers undoubtedly eating salmon, trout, and whatever.
In my own harbour, if you saw a seal, it was an oddity, and you were calling people to look at the seal. Last weekend, there were 62 sitting on rocks near the mouth of a salmon river, and then there's more. As Morrissey Johnson used to say, they're not eating turnips. We have to be very conscious of that and adjust our quotas to keep the herds in control and in check.
Regarding counterpropaganda, I was in Norway just a couple of weeks ago. Norway is also a major seal hunting country, as is Russia. We don't hear much about them. We're the ones who are centre targeted, particularly in Newfoundland, Quebec, and the Maritimes. We have been working with them, as we have been with the provinces. We met with all the seal hunting provinces to try to coordinate push-back to get the right information out.
I have been in Belgium and talked to parliamentarians there. We had parliamentarians there last week to whom you people spoke. I understand that some people look at things differently. The ones I spoke to certainly did when we finished.
Norway is solidly onside. Iceland is, to a degree; they're more concerned with other mammals, but certainly they are supportive. As with our overfishing, we have to utilize our international friends. Norway is also an major market for some of our products.
In relation to the marketing of the product and research, I totally agree that we have to put more money into research for utilizing the whole animal. Certainly as it comes to the need in relation to the invitation to eat it, I would certainly say that many times in the past it was either that or cod, and sometimes you accept seal as an option.
Yes, we have potential there; it's a matter of zeroing in. But again, I believe you will see some of these recommendations coming out of the summits, because it certainly was an issue in Quebec and Newfoundland.
:
Thank you, Mr. Stoffer. That is a very good suggestion. We can certainly let the committee know, or have a report that I can make available to the committee members, about what is happening, where we see a decrease, or an increase, or whatever.
The thing is that part of the problem in Newfoundland is that we have some people who are completely and utterly irresponsible, one of them being a former minister and now a senator who continuously talks about the hundred Russian trawlers that are out off our coast and that type of thing. We see very little activity. If we could control the fishery inside our 200-mile limit today as well as we can control it on the Nose and Tail and Flemish Cap, we'd be in very good shape.
Things have come a long way. We see the cooperation we're getting, even from countries like Spain, now before the requirements kick in, but as of January 1, any countries that step out of line in relation to illegal, unregulated fishing, overfishing, or misreporting are going to pay an extremely heavy price. Added to that of course is the resolution at the UN. I believe we have gone a long way toward solving that problem.
However, we have to make sure that we are the ones who will continue to manage that by the presence of our coast guard. That's why, when we talk about losing jobs and so on, our aim is to enhance the coast guard to the point where we'll be adding rather than taking away. Our presence in the north will depend heavily on the coast guard, so I see an enhanced role for the coast guard rather than a diminished one.
If we talk about custodial management, a term that nobody has ever defined, we have a scenario now where we have the management regime outside basically the same as we have inside, and we can manage that with our forces if we keep them in place--our coast guard and our aerial surveillance. Basically, we have the tools now and we've made the progress to do the job, and it would be only fair to let people know how far we've come.
:
Not really. We had already an endowment fund on the west coast. There is a Pacific coast endowment fund. We have been using that argument, I guess, to get one for the Atlantic coast, which we now have.
Concerning the initiative in the Fraser Valley, even though I said there was no connection, there is in the sense that it all goes to protecting our salmon, the wild salmon in particular. You have a lot of groups--and we've met them--on the west coast who pride themselves on protecting the salmon. I think for a while they were going, like all of us, in different directions, and now they're all coming together.
One of the players we've worked with fairly closely is a fellow by the name of Rick Hansen, the Man in Motion, who has done a great job in protecting and promoting the sturgeon and enhancing the sturgeon stocks on the Fraser. I had the advantage a couple of weeks ago of spending some time on the Fraser with him and a number of others, including first nations people and our own official members of these various groups.
They have come together to bring everyone to the table to try to develop a proper procedure for managing the salmon in the area, protecting and enhancing, and getting everybody around, and cutting out these wars we saw every year on the Fraser River. I think we've come a long way. We put $10 million into that initiative, and they will be raising a tremendous amount of money themselves; they have major commitments. I'm really pleased with what I see happening on the west coast.