FOPO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

Á

1105

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

Mr. David Bevan (Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

The Chair

Á

1115

The Chair

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright (Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

The Chair

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

Á

1120

The Chair

Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Middlesex, CPC)

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Ms. Sue Kirby (Assistant Deputy Minister, Oceans, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

Á

1125

The Chair

Mr. Gary Schellenberger

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Ms. Sue Kirby

Á

1130

The Chair

Mr. Gary Schellenberger

The Chair

Mr. Gary Schellenberger

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

Á

1135

Mr. Gary Schellenberger

The Chair

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. George Da Pont (Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources Corporate Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. George Da Pont

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. George Da Pont

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. George Da Pont

Á

1140

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

The Chair

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

Á

1145

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

The Chair

Á

1150

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

The Chair

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

The Chair

Mr. George Da Pont

The Chair

Mr. George Da Pont

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, CPC)

Á

1155

Mr. Yves Bastien (Commissioner for Aquaculture Development, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

Â

1200

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. Yves Bastien

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Â

1205

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

The Chair

Â

1230

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Steckle

Â

1235

The Chair

Mr. Paul Steckle

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Paul Steckle

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

The Chair

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

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Â

1240

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

Ms. Sue Kirby

The Chair

Mr. Yves Bastien

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Â

1245

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

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

The Chair

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. George Da Pont

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. David Bevan

Â

1250

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. George Da Pont

The Chair

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

Â

1255

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Bill Matthews

·

1300

Mr. David Bevan

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. George Da Pont

The Chair

Mr. George Da Pont

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

---

NUMBER 009

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.)): We'll start our meeting. I don't want to keep our witnesses waiting, because I know they're busy people. We want to make sure we get as many questions in as we can in the time that is allotted to us.

    Welcome to you all. Before I introduce you, I will say we are here pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), studying the main estimates, votes 1, 5 and 10, under Fisheries and Oceans.

    As I said to our witnesses, when I see quorum of our committee for the purposes of votes, which is nine members, I will suspend the meeting, go into an in camera session, and deal with the business we need to deal with in camera. And then I'll ask you folks to come back and we'll carry on.

    What we're going to do, then, is plunge right into the estimates. Let me introduce our witnesses.

    Jean-Claude Bouchard, associate deputy minister; George Da Pont, assistant deputy minister, human resources corporate services; Sue Kirby, assistant deputy minister, oceans, who wasn't here the last time; Wendy Watson-Wright, assistant deputy minister, science, who was, but now she's sitting up there; Yves Bastien, commissioner of aquaculture development, and we'll find out about that; Sharon Ashley, director general, policy coordination and liaison; and Mr. Bevan, of course, but he's not listed. Why isn't he? A surprise guest, Mr. Bevan.

    What's you position again, Mr. Bevan?

    Mr. David Bevan (Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Acting ADM, fisheries management.

    The Chair: Welcome to you all. Thank you for coming and for making yourselves available.

    We'll begin the questioning with the Conservative Party of Canada, and we'll start with Mr. Schellenberger.

    I beg your pardon, you did give me a heads up. Mr. Bouchard is going to have an opening statement. He's going to attempt, I take it, to answer a couple of the questions that were left unanswered from our last meeting. I apologize. Please go right ahead.

Á  (1115)  

    The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Bouchard.

    As you can see, and as colleagues can see, we have quorum, but we have a small glitch. We have not received our material yet from where we are supposed to receive it, so we can't consider it until we have it in front of us. We can't deal with the matters in camera until we get the documentation, so now that I see the members here, I'm watching for the back door. When I see somebody come in with a armful of papers, then we'll carry on with our plan as we talked about it. I would appreciate it if members would remain until we deal with the in camera item on the coast guard. Thank you.

    You had mentioned that Ms. Watson-Wright would make some sort of statement on the feedback for seismic testing, I believe it was. I'd ask you to do that now.

    Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright (Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The research question asked by Mr. Cuzner last week refers to experimental studies currently under the direction of Dr. Mikio Moriyasu of Moncton. It consists of four parts: acoustic monitoring of sound levels at several depths; acoustic monitoring at cage sites; and--I suspect this is the part that Mr. Cuzner was referring to--the caging of snow crab and the associated biological measurements as well as the holding of the insonified and reference snow crabs in the aquaria and the associated biological measurements.

    The work will be completed in the late summer, and the report on results will be released for peer review in the fall of this year 2004.

    If I could just add, Mr. Chair, there are other works going on in order to allow us to assess the effects of seismic on aquatic resources. We have two contracts underway that will cover the current practices employed in other jurisdictions to manage seismic noise impacts. And we are currently employing acoustic models used to predict sound propagation. These will be completed in April. We are also in the midst of writing four review papers--these are being written by DFO employees--where we will summarize the current literature on the impacts of seismic operations on adult and juvenile fish, on fish eggs, larvae and zooplankton, on the marine mammal physiology and behaviour, and on invertebrates, including the benthic and reef-producing animals. We'll be looking at a number of different things within each of these papers and we will be completing them by the end of next month of April, and we are scheduling a peer review process in May.

    The Chair: I don't recall Mr. Cuzner mentioning snow crabs. I think he was talking in general, so I think you've answered in general, but you were specific on the snow crab issue.

    Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: Although he didn't mention snow crabs when he asked you about when you anticipate initial feedback from the seismic testing, it was in reference, I suspect, to what the minister was talking about, and that was the crab study, where we had caged crabs at control and reference sites. I'm guessing that this is the case.

Á  (1120)  

    The Chair: And it's probably a very good guess. And thank you for the other answers.

    Only one official language report has arrived so far, I'll keep you guessing as to which one. So we'll carry on with our questioning until the other official language report arrives. We'll begin in the usual course of events with the Conservative Party.

    Mr. Schellenberger, did you want to start off?

    Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Middlesex, CPC): Thank you. I must apologize for leaving early from the last meeting. I wish I could have been here, but I had to go away.

    I am a member of Parliament for southwestern Ontario, and we have a particular problem. I don't think it has just arisen, but it's quite troublesome for a lot of our farmers, not only in Ontario but also in a lot of other areas. It's the fencing of waterways.

    I have one particular farmer in my riding who has 350 acres of river flats. The river runs through it, of course. This man has been harassed almost to the end of the earth about the fact that his cattle must not be in the rivers any more. He has gone to great lengths to test the water coming onto his property and going out. The tests are the same. I don't know what the environmental impact is, then, of those cattle. I know that every time the 350 head of cattle that do graze on this land go to the bathroom they do not run to the river. At the same time, if they are in the river they wouldn't rush to get out. So I do understand how animals work.

    It's grassland. It has ground cover.The same person would be allowed to till this soil up to within a distance of the river, and at various times, especially in the spring with the floods, I think there'd be more environmental damage done with the silt and other material that goes down the river than would be done by the animals.

    It's great to come up with ideas or with ways...and I don't believe that it's all wrong. There should at least be a grandfather clause in there and a reasonable time set. The lands have been assessed at roughly $2,500 an acre. If he can't run his cattle on these lands, what is the value of it? Is it zilch? You can't build on flood plain. There's a real problem.

    I know it's between the fisheries and oceans department and the environment department, but these people are in great peril. What do they do? I think if they were given 15 or 20 years to phase this in, they're going to have to....

    Again, we're not in Florida. If you do fence the rivers, in the spring when the ice comes down, away go your fences. I know there was a test done not too far away from us, and I've noted some of the damage that was done this spring. I guess we'll get a reply on how much damage was done, but it's cost-prohibitive. It just doesn't work.

    I'm wondering if you could explain some of this to me.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: Mr. Chairman, we are aware of the problem, obviously, and we are at this moment working with Environment Canada in trying to find a way to protect the fish habitat and at the same time to understand the predicament those farmers are in.

    With your permission, I would like Ms. Kirby to answer that question in a more fulsome way.

    The Chair: Yes, Ms. Kirby.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: Sue, the operator will take care of the microphones. Last week we learned that.

    Ms. Sue Kirby (Assistant Deputy Minister, Oceans, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I didn't have that advantage.

    As Jean-Claude has said, this is a responsibility we share with Environment Canada, and the concern is over deleterious substances in the water, and particularly in this instance manure and those sorts of things. There has been a proposal of fencing as a way to deal with it from Environment Canada, as you know.

    Our preferred approach is to work with stakeholders. We have recently been doing quite a bit of work with the Cattlemen's Association. We are aware of the issues and of the problem, and our hope is that we can work with Environment Canada and the Cattlemen's Association to come up with best practices guides and other ways of deal with the issue. We are aware of it.

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: Without taking your time, we do have the chairman of the agriculture committee here as well, and I might suggest, without wanting to give him any more work, that it wouldn't be a bad idea if the two departments liaised not just with Fisheries and Oceans and Environment, but also with Agriculture, since one of the main contributors is manure from animals in farming practice. So it wouldn't hurt to talk with the agriculture committee about this and work with that committee as well to resolve this issue to the satisfaction of everybody concerned, if at all possible.

    Mr. Schellenberger, please.

    Mr. Gary Schellenberger: To enlarge on that particular thing, I know that some of the cities in their treatment plants at various times of the year, again in a flood,or heavy rain, or whatever situation, sometimes have bypass within their systems that comes down these same rivers.

    My thinking is that it's pretty easy to beat on one guy, or one or two, in agriculture where the cities sometimes.... My thinking would be that if it was clean water coming into his property and dirty water going out, then I could see where the problem was. I know you have to start somewhere. I'm very much in favour of cleaning up the environment and making our rivers pristine, but not only does it run to there--I know we have to protect our fish--but we also have problems in rural Canada with some of our drainage ditches that have been installed over the years. As soon as there's a pollywog or a minnow in that drainage ditch, we have problems about when you can work on it and everything, and these things have to be protected. Again, had the ditch not been dug, there wouldn't be a fish there.

    I'm wondering what the projection is to make sure cities, as they treat their sewage, are made to put pristine water into our rivers.

    Second, again, when agricultural land is used to take sludge from.... I think a lot of people in cities think when they flush the toilet everything just goes bang, but most of the sludge that's left after things are treated comes back out on agricultural land. So I think these things all have to be thought of.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: I would like Ms. Kirby to answer.

    Ms. Sue Kirby: In terms of the question with municipalities, we fully agree. We're very concerned about municipal waste, and it is an area where we've been very active over the years as well. It is another one we share with Environment Canada, in fact, that they laid on.

    Right at the moment, Environment Canada is actually working on developing a proposed regulation under the Fisheries Act to deal specifically with municipal waste, and that work's underway with the provinces as we speak. We're hopeful that will result in some improvements, because we agree it's a terrible environmental problem and it's a really bad thing for fish habitat.

    On the issue of agricultural drains, that is one where we think we've made a fair bit of progress in recent years in terms of some of what we're trying to do with the fish habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act in terms of streamlining our approaches. We are at the moment in the midst of developing what we call a risk management framework that would enable us to take a much more streamlined approach to issues that we consider to be of lower risk to the habitat, and agricultural drains is one that has been identified through that process. We think we've already made some advances and that it is in fact a model we can apply elsewhere. But we do want to build on the work that's been done and to continue it, working with the farming community.

Á  (1130)  

    The Chair: You have some time.

    Mr. Gary Schellenberger: I have some time?

    The Chair: You don't have to take it.

    Mr. Gary Schellenberger: Oh, but I will.

    I have one more thing that should concern us all, and that is the invasive species in the Great Lakes. I'm of the understanding that funding is being cut for at least trying to combat these invasive species we have there. I can remember, when I was much younger than I am now, all the smelt and perch we used to catch and everything. I know what the lamprey eel has done, and I know what the zebra mussels have done. I saw the death of thousands of loons a couple of years ago. I spent a whole day incinerating many carcasses. If there is going to be any cutback on combating these things, I think that's giving up. I think we're in for a lot of trouble within our lakes if we don't do that. I would hope that the funding is not cut.

    That will be my last question, once I get an answer. Thank you.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: I could maybe offer a couple of comments on this. The funding for invasive species, the sea lamprey in particular, has remained stable. It hasn't increased, it hasn't decreased in the last few years. It is funding we reallocated internally several years ago. We have international agreements with the United States on the control of sea lamprey in particular and other invasive species. We are exploring the possibility of working more closely with the Province of Ontario in finding a way to fund this, because more money will be required. The problem is not going away. We believe, by working closely with the Province of Ontario, we can find a way to fund additional work there. One of the ideas being explored is adding a small amount of money to fishing licences of sport fishers. There are other ideas, but I want you to know that we're aware of it and we're trying to work more closely with the Province of Ontario.

    Dr. Watson-Wright may want to add to that.

    Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: This refers to the study that was conducted by this committee last year on invasives. When we were here last week, one of the members indicated concern that we had ignored the studies, but we are making some progress on this.

    First, the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers' task group on aquatic invasive species has completed the first draft of a national plan on aquatic invasive species. That will be presented to ministers in September.

    We in DFO are also conducting a risk assessment on four species of Asian carp, which was mentioned fairly often last year, as you recall. We are evaluating management options. It's taking a little longer than we had expected, for a number of reasons, but in the interim the Government of Ontario has begun consultations on regulations banning the sale and purchase of live Asian carp under provincial legislation, as well as a ban on possession under the Fisheries Act Ontario fisheries regulations.

    Third, the International Maritime Organization very recently reached an agreement for ballast water management, at their February meeting, with the finalization and approval of the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments. The convention will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35% of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant shipping. So it won't be quick, but at least we're making progress.

    Finally, we have established a research chair of aquatic invasive species at the University of Windsor under Dr. Hugh MacIsaac. This is working very well. Probably the number one thing in his mandate is to create a network across Canada of researchers, both within and outside government, to work on vectors and pathways of introduction of invasive species and other research issues.

    So it may not be as much as we'd like or as fast as we'd like, but I think we are making progress. Certainly, aquatic invasive species are one of the emerging priorities of the department.

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. Gary Schellenberger: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    On the invasive species, it's wonderful to hear what the Province of Ontario is doing, but we recommended that the federal government do the same thing under federal legislation with respect to the importation of Asian carp.

    Second, can you tell us what amount has been allocated for 2004-05 for the sea lamprey program and how it compares with last year's amount?

    Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: I believe there was a question whether the federal government could address the issue you're speaking of, but I will come back to you on that.

    Second, $6.1 million has been allocated for sea lamprey, exactly the same as last year and the year before.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Just so you're aware of it, the committee hopes to revisit the issue of invasive species at some point in the near future and get a progress report on what's happening.

    Monsieur Roy.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have five questions and I may not have enough time to ask them in five minutes.

    The Chair: And no answers.

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Yes, five questions without answers.

    First of all, I would like to thank you for the information that you have provided to us, but I do have a problem. I would also have liked to have the list of harbours that you deem to be non-core. That's my first question. I would like to know how you determine that certain harbours are non-core. Some communities feel that these harbours are core harbours whereas you feel that this is not the case. You are probably basing yourself on the use of the harbour by fishers.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: We would be pleased to provide you with a list of all the harbours that we deem to be non-core.

    As for the criteria enabling us to determine whether or not a harbour is deemed core, we base ourselves primarily on the use made by the fishers. Mr. Da Pont can complete my answer if other criteria are involved.

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Since I do not have a great deal of time, I would like to know if you have determined how much it will cost to demolish the 200 or so harbours in question. How much will it cost you to demolish the harbours now, and not in five years' time? Do you have any idea of the total cost?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: We probably do have an idea of the total cost. Personally, I do not know how much it would cost, in total, to demolish the 200 or so harbours you mentioned. George, do you have this information?

[English]

    Mr. George Da Pont (Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources Corporate Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I don't have an exact figure, but I will give it to you later. We have done some work, and I understand that for the harbours that are now slated for demolition, it would cost us $3 million or $4 million, but I will have to verify that.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Are you talking about all of the harbours?

[English]

    Mr. George Da Pont: Yes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: All right.

    You also talked about an exhaustive study on harbour life cycle management that was done in 1999 and updated in 2002. When do you intend to update this study again?

[English]

    Mr. George Da Pont: As to the study, I'm afraid I don't know yet.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: You cannot answer me. That is to say, you do not know when you will be updating this study again. It is very important to keep this report up-to-date because costs have probably increased significantly. I would, nevertheless, like to have a copy of the 2002 study to find out what costs were involved at that time. Since then, most of these harbours have probably deteriorated even more. That may represent significant additional costs and I would like to have an idea of what these costs may be. I would like to know if the department is able to do such a study in the short term.

    Now I would like to ask a question about assistance provided to independent harbour authorities. Requests for assistance are made on a very regular basis. The harbour authorities in my riding have told me personally that they had a great deal of difficulty doing their jobs because they did not have enough money to operate properly. What investments are you making in the independent harbour authorities? Do you provide them with adequate financial assistance so that they can achieve their objectives?

[English]

    Mr. George Da Pont: We try to make as much of an investment as we can in the operation of the harbour authorities themselves. We do spend about $1.5 million a year to facilitate that, about a third of which is devoted to insurance. The harbour authorities also support some of their work through the fact that they are allowed to keep any revenue generated in the harbour. This year that amounts to about $11 million a year.

    Those are the main funding sources that support the work of the harbour authorities. We've heard, as you have said, from the harbour authorities that they feel that amount of money is insufficient. We have been working fairly closely with the national advisory committee of harbour authorities to find some options to make better use of the money collectively and to provide some stronger support services to the harbour authorities. We've been engaged in discussions on that subject for the past few months, and we will continue to be so, looking for solutions.

Á  (1140)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Over the past five years, you determined that there were 8,000 contaminated sites, including the lighthouses and harbours. What other sites are you talking about? Moreover, have you begun assessing how much it could cost to decontaminate the 8,000 properties belonging to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: As I tried to explain in my opening remarks, we have classified these sites. Certain sites involve less risk than others. We therefore tried to determine those with the greatest risk. It will cost a great deal of money to decontaminate all of these sites. We therefore established a priority list, and this is why we were very pleased to hear, in the most recent budget, that new money has been earmarked to decontaminate these sites, including the Coast Guard bases and northern locations where there are transmission towers. Eight thousand sites, that is a big number. This is why we prepared a priority list.

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: You established a priority list spread over five years.

    Assuming that you have a budget for that, would it be possible to provide us, at least for the next year, with a ballpark figure of what this may represent?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: You would like to know how much it would cost if, tomorrow morning, we were to decide to decontaminate the 8,000 sites. We would be pleased to provide such information to you, but I do not know the answer off the top of my head.

[English]

    The Chair: Members, we're very close to receipt of the other official language.

    Mr. Provenzano.

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

    On the sea lamprey eel control program, I think a couple of comments are in order. I feel that the program should be renamed, and I have done that. I think it's more aptly called the sea lamprey eel elimination program, with the acronym SLEEP, because quite frankly, I do think that's exactly what the department would like to see, that this program go into repose.

    You say the funding in this year's budget remains stable, and I'd like to comment on that and give you a chance to comment. I think the underlying problem here is that as committee members, we're something like miners: we have to move a lot of material to get at what we're looking for. I've never found it particularly easy, for example, to find out the tidbit of information in the estimates on just how much has been allocated to that one invasive species. You said $6.1 million had been allocated, and you referred to that as stable funding. Well, if someone hasn't provided their kid with a little increase in their allowance, at some point the kid can't go to the movies. The problem here is that at least for the last six years--I could say seven, but I'm not sure--that funding has remained static, not stable. If it were stable, it would have been adjusted for inflation somewhat, but it has remained static. So it doesn't have the purchasing power for the needs of the program that it did six and seven years ago. The other aspect of this is that it is a small percentage of what the United States is contributing to the same program.

    How close is this to A-base funding that has been requested over the years? Second, what does that $6.1 million represent as a percentage contribution necessary to run the program? What are the Americans contributing, and what are we contributing? Has their funding gone up or down over the same period?

    I have some more questions, but I'd like that answer.

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: I'll start, and then I'll ask Dr. Watson-Wright to address the detailed questions you have asked.

    You're right, static is probably a better qualifier for the budget. We also explained last week that if you look at the total budget of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the increases we are seeing from one year to the other, certainly from last year to this year, are a couple of million dollars. So we're not getting a lot of increases in our budget. I'm not sure we will win the war on sea lamprey--that's a personal opinion that Dr. Watson-Wright may disagree with--but we understand that we could spend a lot more money in eradicating the sea lamprey in every one of the streams around the Great Lakes.

    As to your question on the percentage of what we spend in comparison to the United States, I don't remember the figure, but Dr. Watson-Wright probably has that.

    Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: Generally speaking, the funding formula is 31% for Canada, the remainder for the U.S. As to whether this has gone up or down, it has: theirs has gone up and down and ours has remained the same. So if they choose in one year to increase, our percentage goes down, but if they choose to decrease, our percentage goes up.

    I don't have the figures for this coming year. My understanding is that the U.S. is actually going to decrease funding. They have a different fiscal year. I would have to get back to you with the numbers on that.

    As to finding it in the estimates, we don't, I guess, differentiate among the many different scientific programs. We have over 1,200 different programs within science, so it would be a hard slog if we tried to put it in the estimates.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I think the committee would benefit from that kind of information because of the items that will be on its table. The sea lamprey eel is just one invasive species. As I said, it seems we have to move a lot of material to find what we're looking for, and we do at times feel like miners.

    It suggests a new presentation format. Why shouldn't the members of this committee or anyone interested in the operational plans and expenditures of DFO be able to zero in on a piece of information that's relevant to operational spending? Why shouldn't we be able in the estimates to zero in on how much money is being spent in a particular region--the case in point--and the programs that relate to that region?

    Certainly DFO is more than a government department that looks after the fisheries matters on both coasts. We've got the Great Lakes, and quite frankly, it's been my impression over the years that the Great Lakes are the poorest cousin in the whole arrangement. I would like to be able to go to the estimates and see what moneys are being allocated to the Great Lakes region. I would like to be able to see line by line, program by program, where the moneys in that allocation are being spent. I think it might help the committee in its deliberations from time to time to make some intelligent decisions. Right now it's very tough.

    The Chair: Mr. Provenzano, this was the very subject matter of the letter that the committee sent and we received a very tardy response to, on the day you were going to appear or thereabouts. So we're repeating the theme we began last year.

    Could you respond as to what you're going to be doing about it?

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: I will repeat what the deputy said in his appearance last week on the comments the committee has made, that the main estimates are not very friendly for members who want to find the information they need. I think we recognize that. We have transmitted those comments to the Treasury Board. The deputy has indicated that we are willing to work with the committee in exploring ways of presenting estimates. Again, Treasury Board has to agree with those presentations, but we certainly are willing to work with you. In the meantime, until we achieve the perfect tool that will provide all of us with all the information we need, we are more than ready, Mr. Chairman, to answer any specific questions you may have on funding and provide the breakdowns you want.

    The deputy also indicated in his appearance last week that we certainly want to be more timely in answering your questions. I think my coming in today, a week after our last appearance, and trying to answer the unanswered questions is an example of that. We are willing to work with you and provide you with the information you need.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Can you tell me how much of the budget is allocated to the Great Lakes region and the percentage of those funds in the whole allocation?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: I will ask my colleague Mr. Da Pont to try to find this number for you. It is somewhere in our notes.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I know it is. That's the point.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: I must apologize for not having the answer right here, but we will get it for you, hopefully in a few minutes.

    The Chair: Anything else, Mr. Provenzano?

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: No, that's good. Thanks.

    The Chair: Just to follow up on that, if a member of the public wanted to find out how much the sea lamprey program would be getting in 2004-05, is there an easy, simple way to obtain that information from the material you've posted on the Internet, or is it like mining?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: The answer, Mr. Chairman, is no, it is not easy. The citizen would have to ask us, and we would of course answer.

    On the previous question, I think Mr. Da Pont can answer it now.

    The Chair: Have you got that, Mr. Da Pont?

    Mr. George Da Pont: Yes, I believe I have a partial answer to it.

    The Chair: For how many of the Great Lakes?

    Voices: Oh, oh.

    Mr. George Da Pont: I feel like I'm running on a basic theme here today, sir.

    Our funding, the way it shows up in the estimates, is for our central and arctic region, which includes the Great Lakes, the prairies, and the north. The total expenditures there are $122.7 million, which represents about 8.4% of the budget. We would have to, and we will, provide you with some additional breakdown to make it more specific to the Great Lakes region.

    I might add a comment in terms of the issue raised as a follow-up as well to the point that Mr. Bouchard made. We obviously internally keep financial records in much more detail than they appear in the main estimates and in terms of line estimates by program. We are prepared to make available to the committee access to that material on an ongoing basis. I believe that was one of the other points, as an interim solution, that was noted in the minister's letter.

    In terms of your point about the sea lamprey program and whether someone could go and find it in the estimates easily, the answer there would be no, but the reason for this is that because the department isn't funded specifically for the sea lamprey program, it doesn't appear in the estimates in that way. What happens is that the department reallocates money to that program from other things.

    So in the more detailed material that we would be prepared to give you access to, you could track that, but if you were trying to track it from the main estimates on that particular program, you wouldn't be able to.

    The Chair: Thank you. Very good.

    We'll now go to the Conservative Party for five minutes.

    Mr. Burton.

    Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I'm quite pleased to see Mr. Bastien here today. I have an interest in aquaculture and the situation in British Columbia as we speak in terms of the potential, I believe, for the industry on the coast of British Columbia.

    I guess probably most of us know that aquaculture has been fairly controversial out on the west coast, and for a number of reasons. There have been some problems, there's no doubt about that, but there has also been a lot of misinformation. In my riding of Skeena, one of the Indian bands, the Kitasoo Band, has been in the industry for some time, with aquaculture projects, which Mr. Bastien mentions in his report. As well, the Kitkatla Band is in the process of having some sites approved.

    I'm quite enthused about that, because I believe if these projects prove to be successful...and so far the Kitasoo one certainly has been. It's taken their unemployment rate in that village from 90% down to probably 30% to 40%. So they're very pleased with that. It's creating some employment. I think if we can set some good examples, it will bode well for the future of the industry on the coast.

    To Mr. Bastien, given the recent report you put out, which was very pro the future of aquaculture, where do you see, or where would you like to see, the federal direction going in terms of continued funding for aquaculture promotion and programs? What do you see as the future in terms of the federal role?

Á  (1155)  

    Mr. Yves Bastien (Commissioner for Aquaculture Development, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you for your question.

    The way I've presented in the report the recommendation we've made.... Definitely the sector is what we can call a modern agrifood business. As a farming activity, this sector is facing modern challenges. Some of those modern challenges we all know about--food safety, for example, and traceability--but there are a lot of other challenges in other livestock production, such as innovation, environmental sustainability, fish health, animal health. These definitely are things that have been addressed by the federal government with regard to agriculture but that up to now have been passed under the carpet for aquaculture.

    That's why we have a very specific recommendation in saying that the sector needs new programs. Those programs don't necessarily have to be delivered by DFO, the lead federal agency, but we'll have to find a manner, through partnership with other federal agencies and the provinces, to deliver some programs that meet those key challenges.

    If we want to brand Canada all over the world with regard to quality of our product on food safety and traceability, we cannot exclude aquaculture product from the equation. Otherwise, if we have a problem internationally with aquaculture product, we will ruin the overall Canadian initiative on branding Canada overseas with regard to quality and food safety and traceability.

    So they have to be included in the equation, and we have been talking to Agriculture Canada on that front. They are interested, but their answer is always the same, that without new money, forget it, because we don't have the capacity to include another sector. And that's why we have a specific recommendation to get new funds.

    I will insist on one point, if I may, and that's the national aquatic animal health program. Canada is currently at serious risk with regard to our trade with regard to our wild stocks and with regard to our farm stocks, because we don't have a national fish health program or strategy in Canada.

    Take the trade issue. According to the WTO, it's clear that a country cannot impose a trade barrier unless they have internally the system in place where they can say, this zone is free from this disease. But when they have this in place, they can stop importation. If Canada, say, doesn't have a system in place, they can say, well, you don't know if this disease is present or not, so we'll shut the border.

    This is close to us. Right now we are at serious risk. And we mentioned invasive species. With invasive species you have invasive bacteria, or exotic diseases, and we are at risk of disease coming into Canada. With regard to fish generally but to aquaculture clearly, we have no program in place to deal with this kind of issue.

    So I hope members of this committee, all parties included, when the federal government hopefully goes back to cabinet...because you have to know that DFO went to cabinet about a year and a half ago, in 2001, with a memorandum to cabinet to fund NAP. It was approved in principle, but no funding. Well, with no funding, there's no way we can implement a full NAP.

    So if the federal government goes back to cabinet with a request for funding for NAP, I hope there will be a consensus around this table, and hopefully for all the ministers present at cabinet, that we need to fund this, because the country is at serious risk.

  (1200)  

    The Chair: A long answer, so I'll give you another question.

    Mr. Andy Burton: I appreciate that.

    I do appreciate the answer. I understand that most of this was in the report, which I have read. I just wanted to get it on the record for this committee. So thank you for your answer.

    Just very quickly, on the west coast there appears to be somewhat of an anti-aquaculture culture in DFO. Whenever an application is made for a fish farm licence siting, the Navigable Waters Protection Act kicks in the CEA process, the environmental assessment process, almost immediately. It's taking upwards of two years sometimes to get approval for an aquaculture site, which is a relatively small area in the overall scheme of things. Just as an example, with the Confederation Bridge the CEA process took 18 months, and yet here we are talking about it taking a fish farm site upwards of two years to get approvals.

    I just wonder if you could comment on that, Mr. Bastien, on why it's taking so long and on whether we could perhaps assist in some way.

    Mr. Yves Bastien: I think the department's Jean-Claude Bouchard would be a good person to answer the question, but I'll give my kick at it.

    Access to site in a streamlined manner has been a priority of my office for the last five years. In the report, we have specific recommendations to somewhat streamline the process and at the same time make sure we don't lose the key jurisdictional and departmental and Canadian obligations with regard to ensuring that there is no harm to the wild stock and that the environment is protected.

    We have some very specific recommendations here. Some of those recommendations are getting old, because the department has moved forward on streamlining their processes. As mentioned earlier, the streamlining of environmental assessment for agriculture drainage is something the department is doing, but the department is also focusing on streamlining the process for aquaculture sites.

    It's a tough process. It requires harmonization with the provinces as well. It's a long process. What we have in this report hopefully would improve the situation very much, but the devil is in the details, and we'll have to see how some of these recommendations could be implemented.

    So it's a key priority, and it has been focused on a lot by the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers as well.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Monsieur Bouchard, do you want to add anything?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: I'll simply say that there was a situation in our department where the processing of site applications was done differently depending on the region where the application was made. We have worked quite a lot during the last seven to eight months, with people from both coasts, to see how our biologists were treating those applications. We are finalizing a manual that will standardize, or at least bring a consistency to, the way in which we process applications.

    We need to move in a faster way, yes, but we want to make absolutely sure that it's not done at the expense of the protection of the environment. That to us is very important. And we're getting close to that. A lot of work has been done, in British Columbia in particular, on making sure that we streamline the renewal of the 92 farm sites that were in our office.

    I'm confident that we've made quite a bit of progress. Now, I met with the industry this morning, and they told me that we haven't made as much progress as I think we have. That's fine, and we're going to continue to work on it, but I remain convinced that we are further on it than we were six or seven months ago.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Monsieur Bouchard, if memory serves correctly, the minister, when he was here last week, said that he would make an announcement today on the future of the commissioner of aquaculture and that office. Has he made that announcement?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: No. The minister will provide tonight, at the Canadian aquaculture industry association gala, a reply to the commissioner's report. I mean, it won't be a detailed reply, but he will indicate how he intends to respond to the major recommendations of the commissioner and how he intends the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to play its role as the lead agency.

  (1205)  

    The Chair: But my question is specific. Will he indicate what's going to happen with the Office of the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: Yes.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I would ask everyone who has no business at an in camera session to leave the room for a few minutes. Thank you very much.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]

  (1230)  

    Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I wear a number of hats around this place, and it's always a pleasure to come back and sit at the table. Mr. Bastien has been at the table many times in my presence, and to see you people here is wonderful.

    I know this issue has been addressed before, but I'm going to do it again. Much of what I have to say is going to be a repeat of what you've heard this morning.

    I think I heard you say, Mr. Bouchard, that you're looking for ways in which you can raise further moneys for the sea lamprey program. I can assure you that if you bring to the level of funding a request for $8 million.... Mr. Chair, I may stand corrected, but was it $9 million you asked for in the last report?

    The Chair: It was more than $6.1 million, that's for sure.

    Mr. Paul Steckle: That $8 million is the number I am familiar with, one we've never changed, and we again haven't changed that number. I have a commitment from the anglers in Ontario that they will go out.... The government should not be the agency that goes out and raises more money on a stamp or whatever they may want to use with the fishing licence. That should be done by the industry. I think it's more acceptable, it's easier to sell. But we have a commitment, I have a commitment--and this goes back to when Mr. Mifflin was the minister--that if we raise $8 million, they will go out and raise the other dollars.

    That's all we've ever asked for. Everybody around this table knows where I'm going. With sport fishing in Ontario alone, we heard the numbers this morning, the money that comes into the Great Lakes region, the northern region, a hundred and some million dollars out of a total budget of billions. It is hardly a lot to ask for $8 million when we turn around and raise $75 million in GST alone from the province of Ontario. This is a cash cow, and I challenge anybody in government to show me another program in the federal jurisdiction that provides that kind of return for dollars spent. There isn't another one anywhere.

    We've been asking for baseline funding, discretionary funding, and every year the minister has come on the side and said, listen, help us get this money, keep the money in the program. Once again I implore you to find a way to bring in this baseline $8 million, and this will multiply, I can assure you. Please don't get into raising more money in taxes; we don't have to do it that way. These people will do it for us if we only come the distance they're asking for. This is not asking too much.

    You can respond however you like to that.

    The whole issue of invasive species is serious. We know the Asian carp is moving northward, and they have barriers in place, but I don't know why we haven't moved more quickly on the ballast water issue. We have species in our system today that should not be there. We have to take this seriously. Preventive measures are much better than trying to correct the problems after these species have arrived.

    On the issue of black cormorants, there are not indigenous to our area. I'm not sure whether you have the jurisdiction over that or not. They are migratory birds, and I think they're primarily the responsibility of a province. But there's another case. These guys fly into our areas, invade our areas, and take away from our system the small fish fry the anglers and hunters, through volunteer programs, put back into the water. We have these people who are out there always finding ways to protect certain things at the expense of other things that are much more important.

    I can only express to you from Ontario, from central Canada, the view that we have to take some of these arguments seriously.

    My colleague Mr. Schellenberger has raised the issue of fencing. If we do these things for the common good, it is my belief that the good of the common people would lead them to contribute in some way, whether that's through taxes or otherwise. Believe me, today there are so many fewer cattle in our waterways and wherever than there were 100 years ago, and there wasn't a problem then. So the problem can't be attributed to our cattle.

    The Canada goose population in Ontario has exponentially grown over the last 20 years. They're in the rivers, and that's where they do their defecating for the most part. But we're saying nothing about that, because they're a species that has protection in the minds of certain people.

    These are some of my concerns. I am not going to use all my time, but it's probably mostly expired anyhow.

  (1235)  

    The Chair: You have seven seconds.

    Mr. Paul Steckle: So I'm going to use it all, and you can just digest that.

    On the sea lamprey, I don't know how long I'm going to be around this place, but I don't want to leave here for the last time having not told you how serious this issue is. The Americans are doing even more. Michigan has put in $3 million.

    Anyway, I must close it off. Thank you for listening. I expect a positive response.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Steckle.

    Monsieur Bouchard.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: First of all, I understand personally how weird this sea lamprey is--they stuck one on my hand when I visited the region.

    We understand the seriousness of the problem. We are trying to find ways. I repeat, it is a program where we had to reallocate the full $6.1 million. You're saying we should raise it to $8 million, and then the anglers will--

    Mr. Paul Steckle: Put it in the baseline.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: Let me digest that. We're looking at various ways of resolving that issue, so thank you for your comment.

    In the area of cattle, Dr. Watson-Wright has explained that we're working very closely with the cattlemen and Environment Canada. We're trying to find a way to resolve the issue without jeopardizing the livelihood of those people. The good news is that we understand the seriousness of the issue and we're trying to resolve it.

    Thank you for your other comments. I will digest them.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Stoffer.

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

    With Mr. Bastien's NAP and Mr. Provenzano's SLEEP, I feel I want to have a place to lie down somewhere.

    My first question is to whoever can answer it. I'm having difficulty trying to explain to my constituents what exactly the precautionary principle is.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: I will ask my colleague David Bevan to address this question.

    Mr. David Bevan: The precautionary principle is a decision-making process that deals with the fact that we have to manage risks in the face of scientific uncertainty. We can never have enough information to get a precise idea of what's going on in the marine ecosystem, so we have to look at a framework that can be used to help us guide decision-making and managing risks.

    For example, we have put in place a precautionary principle for seal management. We have a population and a pretty good idea where it is, but we also have reference points in the seal plan, and we have a conservation limit at about 1.8 million. If the seal population goes down to that, we would stop fishing. At 3.85 million we switch from socio-economic drivers to conservation. That's what we mean by--

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

    In the recent seismic tests off Cheticamp in Cape Breton, DFO's own scientist indicated concerns about the testing, saying there wasn't enough information. He didn't say you shouldn't go back, but he also didn't say you should go ahead and do this. He just expressed serious concerns about what that testing may do to the fragile fish stocks. We understand from a letter that we got from the former minister that it's actually the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board that makes the decision. All DFO does is refer evidence or advice to that offshore petroleum board to make a proper decision.

    Of course, the concern of fishermen and their families is the fear that one industry may overtake another industry. So with the lead responsibility for the protection of fish and fish habitat, what can we say to fishermen and their families to show that DFO takes it a lot more seriously and they will have all the information to the very best of their ability before you proceed? The danger is that a short-term industry like oil and gas may cause irreparable harm to those fragile ecosystems off the coast of Cheticamp.

    Before you answer, because my time is going to run out, I would throw a quick question to Mr. Bastien at the same time, which he can answer afterwards if possible.

    I've always been an advocate of aquaculture labelling of products. So far you can go to a store anywhere in Canada, and you still won't find either a product like this, a symbol for this, or the information that this is a farmed aquaculture product. I'm wondering why the industry to this date hasn't done that. Are they going to proceed down that road with this particular label?

  (1240)  

    The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, what are you referring to?

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: This is a Canada aquaculture products quality assured label. You don't see this yet on aquaculture products in Canada, but will we be seeing this label soon, or will there be labelling for aquaculture products in the near future?

    The Chair: Okay. So those are the questions. We'll go to the tag team first, and then to Mr. Bastien.

    Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: You indicated that DFO scientists have raised concerns. In fact, the advice on the testing off Cheticamp came from a consensus report. I'm not sure exactly which person you're referring to, but I know that one of the managers within DFO raised questions. I'm not certain if he was aware this was a consensus report and that DFO scientists were very much active within the consensus report.

    As I indicated, we are doing much more work to try to come up with more certainty on the science side, as Mr. Bevan alluded to. We are proceeding and learning more as we go. The feeling right now is that this is the appropriate thing to do in terms of integrated management and increasing the scientific knowledge around seismic testing, in particular--that's what you're referring to.

    We're proceeding cautiously, but we are proceeding. Consensus reports are just that. That's why we attempt to have as many people as possible with knowledge involved in the whole review process.

    I will ask Sue Kirby to respond to the other question.

    Ms. Sue Kirby: Thank you.

    We have a number of scientific studies underway, as Wendy has already told the committee. Part of why we're moving in that direction is that the Oceans Act that was passed in 1997 gives us the ability to establish marine environmental quality guidelines or standards.

    We can't overlap with or duplicate regulation that's already out there, and we're not looking to do that. But we are looking to see if, based on the additional scientific information, we have enough to move forward with a marine environmental quality standard that would deal with noise in the marine environment, including seismic noise.

    The Chair: Mr. Bastien.

    Mr. Yves Bastien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Stoffer, I don't have a full answer for you, but I can ask the industry exactly what their plans are for labelling. I was not there in Boston when they unveiled this brand in Canada. Maybe Jean-Claude can add details if he has some. I think he was there. No.

    Anyway, the plan is that behind this brand there is a full set of codes of practice for Canadian aquaculture that will address food safety, traceability, and environmental sustainability. The plan of the industry is to present to the next CCFAM meeting a full code of practice, where each provincial and regional code of practice can be nested.

    I don't know when they will put tags on the fish, but it's definitely the industry's plan, as I understand it, to brand their products as Canadian aquaculture products with labels of quality. I don't think they have any plan to attach a brand to the product until they have the promise behind the brand established. I can come back, but it's really the industry's initiative in this case.

    The Chair: You may have a very short supplementary, Mr. Stoffer.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: This is something you can reply to later; you don't have to do it now.

    What do you think is the number one reason why the cod haven't come back off Newfoundland?

    Mr. Bastien, there was a lot of angst, on the west coast particularly, about your report. Many groups have called in, not necessarily condemning it, but very concerned about the recommendations you have made. You've worked with many of these groups back and forth, so why do you think that is? Is it because of a lack of information, is it because of a steadfast belief that aquaculture is bad, or is it just an unawareness of what's going on out there?

  (1245)  

    The Chair: You indicated it would be a very short question, but those are going to be long answers.

    I don't want to take time away from the members who haven't had a chance yet, so maybe you could get back to us with answers on that, if you have any opinions on why the cod hasn't come back.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm looking for the number one reason.

    The Chair: Goodness me, it could take an hour to hear that answer.

    I'd like to go to Mr. Hearn, and then to Mr. Matthews.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, CPC): Mr. Chair, I believe Bill and I are very interested in the first part of the last question that Peter asked, about the cod. I certainly wouldn't mind re-asking the question without wasting time. Just give him an answer on why you think the northern cod have not come back.

    The Chair: Dr. Watson-Wright.

    Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: I don't think you want my answer. I think you would want the answers of all the experts. We will come back to you on that. But my feeling is that there will be no one answer. There will be a number of hypotheses. None of them are provable at this point. However, we will come back.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you very much. Now I have a few snappers.

    Recently ACOA announced a fair amount of money for wharf construction and repair. Are these among the core harbours or wharves, or is it outside your area entirely, or is there some cooperation going on there?

    Mr. George Da Pont: Essentially, their program doesn't cover the wharves we have. There's some overlap between the two around divestiture activities on recreational harbours, so we do try to cooperate with them, and there are some instances where we've been able to make the two programs fit in that situation.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: Okay. One of the biggest problems faced by fishermen today is the cost of insurance--well, not only fishermen but also everyone who drives a car in all parts of the country, and more so in some areas than others, perhaps. But vessel insurance is becoming a major burden for a number of fishermen.

    I know you're aware of it. Is anything being done, from a government perspective, to assist in this matter?

    A witness: I will ask my colleague Mr. Bevan to answer that.

    Mr. David Bevan: Obviously, years ago we did have a fishing vessel insurance program that was ratcheted back, at first in order to focus on the high-risk vessels only and to leave the rest of the fleet to private insurers. Then that was stopped, as it was highly expensive in terms of our administration of it relative to the private sector, and at the time, there were a lot of private sector services available.

    We have not considered reactivating it. As I said, it was a fairly expensive program. It would involve several million dollars in just the administrative overheads, let alone dealing with a selection of the fleet. I don't think we would go back to full coverage, nor would the fleet want us to go there. That would mean that we would be looking after only the highest-risk end of the fleet, and I don't think we have the wherewithal to take that job on right now.

    So we have not considered doing it. It's expensive in terms of the administrative overheads, plus there would be the added expense of covering off that insurance business. It's not part of our core competencies any more. The people who ran that are long gone. It would mean starting the entire program from scratch.

    Whether there's something else that can be done relative to the private providers is something we haven't really thought about at this point, but your questions have certainly provided some food for thought. We just don't see the department taking it on internally, but there may be something else that could be done to help the private insurers rethink some of their practices.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you.

    The minister announced some funding just a while ago to increase the surveillance off the Atlantic coast generally. He mentioned bringing one of the coast guard vessels, the Cygnus, back into play. How long will it take to get the boat back?

    Mr. David Bevan: I just had that conversation with the commissioner of the coast guard earlier this week--yesterday actually. They're evaluating the condition of the vessel right now. It has been in cold lay-up, where it hasn't been maintained or it hasn't been crewed, etc. So they're just now taking a look at that vessel and will be getting back to us with a more accurate estimate of the time.

    We're hopeful that it will be on before the busiest part of the fishing activities in the NAFO regulatory area, but I can't give you an exact answer at this time. They may have an answer within a couple of weeks.

  (1250)  

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you.

    Finally, in relation to wharves and harbours, two and a half years ago the committee submitted a report on the infrastructure. In fact, it was quite a damning one, and out of it came $100 million in the budget that fall, which was a help. I'm not sure whether all of that has been used where it was supposed to be, but that's another matter.

    During that time we also raised the issue of some facilities or some harbours that, because of the change in the fishery, should be considered core; perhaps they were core, or if they were not, they should have been core. This was, as I say, because of the changing fishery, with people going on one end from a small boat to a bigger boat, or where some harbours that had been used were no longer used, or in some cases where a small-boat fishery was being reactivated.

    We were told at the time--in fact, in the minister's response--that they were looking at that issue, and we've been assured since then that yes, there are four, five, or perhaps six areas where DFO, through small craft harbours, should perhaps look at assuming ownership and doing something. One of them is our famous Tors Cove.

    Nothing has happened in two and a half years. Conditions are getting worse in some of these areas, and people are taking their boats and hauling them 20 miles to fish somewhere else and end up losing half their gear because nobody is looking after them. Has anything been done on that issue, or is it just lying there?

    Mr. George Da Pont: Yes, we have been working on that issue and looking at the options and the criteria. In addition, at the same time we've been looking at, I suppose, a related issue of about 34 commercial fishing harbours that are not DFO harbours right now that are also in need of varying degrees of funding support. So we have been working on the issue. We have been looking at the options.

    The difficulty, as you know, is that it's difficult stretching the money we do have to cover the existing core harbours that are there. As you can appreciate, trying to stretch it a bit further is a challenge, but we are definitely looking actively at that issue on both sides of it.

    I might add something, though, on your first point. The extra infrastructure money was greatly appreciated, and it is being fully spent. In fact, for the small craft harbour program, in the last two or three years it's generally been the recipient of a bit of additional money from other areas of the department, so often our spending is a little bit higher than it is in the actual main estimates.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Matthews.

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

    I just want to follow up on Mr. Stoffer's question on the cod stocks and moratoria. It's been 12 years now since the northern cod stock fishing or harvesting was shut down, and 12 years later, you're here this afternoon telling us that you really don't know yet what the problem is. I'd like to enter into a dialogue on that, because our people are still waiting for the fish to come back, and they're not coming back. Our people are looking out their windows; they're not allowed to fish, and as I said last day, they see the seals having lunch. I'd like you to respond a bit more about that.

    I don't think it's acceptable for you to sit here this afternoon and say, well, you don't want my answer. But you are an official of the department and someone has to bring all this together, even peer reviews and everything else. Someone has to take the bull by the horns and try to come to a consensus, a conclusion about it. I'd like you to respond to that, because it's very disconcerting to me 12 years afterwards.

    We looked at information the last day you were here on a moratorium that was established up in the minister's area, off Cape Breton somewhere, where the biomass is now significantly less than when you shut the fishery down. There's been no commercial fishery, but there are fewer fish. What's it all about? How much longer are we as people going to have to wait before someone can tell us what's going on in our oceans or when someone is going to have the intestinal fortitude to come to grips with what the problem really is?

    I heard Mr. Bevan talk about the precautionary principle, and he mentioned seals. Well, we have a precautionary principle when it comes to the seal population, yet there doesn't seem to be a precautionary principle about the seals that are eating the cod and decimating them. I'd like to know where all this comes together, because I'm as frustrated as anybody can be about this.

    My people want to fish, and shutting it down hasn't worked. When is it all going to end? When are you going to be able to tell us what the problem is?

  (1255)  

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: Some of us are also very frustrated, but unfortunately, it is difficult to reach a definite conclusion, as Dr. Watson-Wright has said. I'll let her add to it.

    Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: I think your frustration is shared. As I indicated, there are many hypotheses, but they all converge around the fact that a lot of things happened, presumably around the same time, but over an extended period. Clearly, there have been environmental changes that seem to be contributing to the lack of recovery in the cod. Seals play a part in that, but we don't know how large a part.

    The problem with dealing with the oceans is that it's not like dealing with a Petri dish in the lab, where we can control everything. It's very difficult, if not impossible, to prove absolutely a hypothesis within the ocean, which is our laboratory. There will be papers on that, there have been. It all revolves around the fact of the environmental conditions, and the environment would include other predator-prey species, the temperature, the salinity, what's coming down from the Labrador coast. I would love to be able to say there is one reason, but there is no one reason. It's nature, and nature is very complex.

    With regard to the seals, though, I know Mr. Bevan would like to say something.

    Mr. David Bevan: When we were looking at the concern about the preying of seals on cod, I asked the eminent panel on seal fisheries to study that. What's the best size for the seal population? There are a lot of views on that, obviously. They studied it, and there was too complex a relationship between the seals and the cod. The seals are not just only eating cod, they eat other fish that also eat cod, The relationship is beyond current understanding, so we cannot have any kind of predictable outcome. If you eliminate a certain number of seals, what will happen to the cod? They could not come up with that. They did suggest the seal exclusion zones we are working on. They also suggested an additional study we're undertaking on grey seals, their diet, and their impact on cod.

    But we keep thinking about predation only on the adult fish. A big female cod can lay millions of eggs, and they start off as larvae. They are subject to predation by everything from smaller fish on, perhaps even some of the crustaceans, etc., and they get eaten at various stages of their lives. We keep thinking only about one stage, and that's what makes it look simple, when it isn't. If the seals are eating the fish that eat the small cod, what's that doing to the population relevant to the seals that are eating the adults?

    So it's been beyond the ability of the people we've asked to come up with any kind of seal-fish clean, simple reaction. That, I know, is not what you're hearing from your constituents, it's not the collective wisdom of the fishermen, but we have to look at it through the entire life cycle and figure out what's really going on. When we asked the eminent panel to do that, it was beyond them.

    Mr. Bill Matthews: Well, let me just say this to you. The only thing the department has been willing to do so far is shut down the fishermen. You've taken them off the water, and the biomass in a number of stocks has decreased since you took them off the water. In 4VW, from 20,000 tonnes biomass when it was closed down, it's gone to 6,000 tonnes now, a 14,000-tonne decrease. All you've done is take the fishermen off the water. They're not responsible for the decrease. I see there are things environmental you probably don't understand yet, but the only thing you're willing to do is to stop people fishing; you're not willing to do anything else. I know there are a number of factors that have contributed to this, and we're going to deal with a number of factors to hopefully bring it back.

    Have you come to accept that seals do eat fish resources, and that if we took a few million of them out of the water, they would eat that much less, and maybe we would get some regeneration of stocks?

·  (1300)  

    Mr. David Bevan: Obviously, they eat different species of fish, and the relationship between the abundance of cod and seals is not clear. But we do have a multi-year plan for the harp seals, and the most probable outcome is that it's going to reduce the population by around a million animals. We'll have clarity on that issue once we have the survey later on this year. It's still an abundant resource obviously, but we are looking at taking it from what was probably a peak at around 5.7 million down to the range of 4.7 million, and we will have the survey to determine if that actually happens.

    When it comes to assessing the outcome if the seal eats an adult cod versus if a seal eats the other species that eat the juvenile cod, I can't answer that, the eminent panel couldn't answer that, and we don't have a predictable way around that. We are reducing the population of harps somewhat, and we'll see if that has any impact. And we are studying the seal exclusion zones.

    The Chair: Mr. Matthews, we'll have to leave it at that in view of the time. I think you've made your point. We hear what you're saying.

    I have one question and then just a brief comment.

    The committee has heard that the new director of the Canadian Coast Guard College has told the students that the college will not be accepting recruits next year in order to help with the college's financial situation. Is it true that the college does not plan to accept students next year? If it is, and even if it isn't, what's the college's financial situation?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: The college reports to Mr. Da Pont, so I'll ask him to answer that question.

    Mr. George Da Pont: It is true that the college isn't accepting any new students this coming year, but the reason is primarily coast guard operational needs, projecting their requirements over the next few years. There remains a significant financial challenge at the college. It has operated in a deficit situation for a number of years, and we've taken a variety of steps to address that challenge, fairly successfully I think, in the last two or three years.

    The other issue that affects the point you made is that the coast guard and Canadian Coast Guard College are going to review the structure and design of the officer cadet training program and will be assessing whether there are any improvements, streamlining, or efficiencies that can be made.

    The Chair: So even not accepting students next year, it will still run in a deficit position?

    Mr. George Da Pont: Yes, it will. Right now it is a four-year program, so while they're not accepting any intake, they still have the students there for the remaining three years of the program.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    On behalf of all the members of the committee, I would like to thank Mr. Yves Bastien for his work as the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development over this past number of years. We have absolutely no idea what the minister is going to say this evening; I guess we'll find out. But we do want to thank you for all your efforts, for the reports you've done, and for bringing to the attention of the Canadian people that there is a place for aquaculture in Canada, that there is a place for farmed fish, and it should be encouraged. So we thank you very much for your efforts.

    Finally, I want to thank the department for coming and being open and available to us. We do have a slot open on Thursday, but we've decided not to exercise it. That doesn't mean we are through with our study of the estimates, because we have until the end of May to report. So depending on whatever circumstances occur, if we're going to be back here after Easter, no doubt we'll be asking you to come back, and we hope you'll be happy to come back and see us.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: We will always be pleased to come and answer your questions and listen to your advice.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Thank you, colleagues. We'll adjourn the meeting.