:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning.
Good morning to the honourable members. I want to thank this committee for the opportunity to appear before you today.
I want to introduce the people with me. To my right is Deputy Minister Michelle d'Auray. We're very sad to be losing her from DFO, unfortunately, in the next couple of weeks; she's been a very good deputy minister. However, to my left is Associate Deputy Minister Claire Dansereau, and she will become the deputy minister in a couple of weeks. We congratulate Claire on that.
Also with me is the Canadian Coast Guard Commissioner, George Da Pont; the Assistant Deputy Minister for Corporate Services, Cal Hegge; and the Assistant Deputy Minister for Fisheries Aquaculture Management, David Bevan. There are several other officials in the room as well.
I will begin by saying how pleased I am to have been appointed the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It's certainly a very exciting and important mandate. Coming from a fishing family and community, I understand the importance of fisheries to coastal communities and to this country's economy. I know how important it is to focus on the economic viability of the fishery.
As this is my first appearance before the committee—I'm sure it won't be my last—I want you to know that I'm eager to work with all of you. The committee has been a strong advocate on behalf of the fishing industry and its stakeholders, and I want to hear your perspectives. I hope that this is the first of many productive meetings in terms of working together. I do look forward to frank discussions in the months ahead about important issues facing our fisheries and oceans industries and our stakeholders. I think together we can make a difference in the lives of Canadians all across the country.
Today I'd like to talk to you about DFO's accomplishments in the months since I was appointed and where we'll be going in the months ahead. I'd also like to touch on budget 2009 and what it means for fisheries and marine sectors as well as coastal communities across the country.
As we all know, the global economic downturn is impacting the fishing industry. Already we have started to see slowdowns and downturns in activities across Canada. For example, last month we saw the impact that the U.S. recession is having on parts of the Atlantic lobster fishery. Looking forward, it's hard to predict the state of seafood markets for this coming spring and summer, but we can expect that times will be difficult.
Fishing enterprises from the inshore owner-operator to the large integrated firms are facing a credit crunch from institutional lenders. Maritime services are slowing down. Oil and gas and mining projects are scaling back. Organizations that work with us in restoring habitat and enhancing fish stocks are finding it more difficult to raise funds.
Our government recognizes the urgency of this situation. That's why we've invested in public infrastructure, construction, businesses, and communities. As all of you know, our government is making strategic investments to strengthen Canada's financial system and to stimulate spending so that Canadians can ride out this economic storm. It's a plan focused on supporting development and growth.
In pre-budget consultations with harvesters and processors, the one issue that came up time and time again was access to credit. I travelled to the gulf, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Pacific regions to hear what people had to say about fishery issues. In my discussions, I heard deep concerns about access to capital and the need for marketing and market diversification. I listened, and our government is already taking action.
We created a business credit availability program that will help our seafood enterprises and harvesters gain access to credit so they can ride out a challenging season. Support for workers is another key component of our economic action plan. By extending EI benefits by five weeks, providing additional funds for training, and extending support for older workers, our government will help ships' crews, plant workers, and harvesters through these difficult times.
For those in the industry who are hardest hit by the decline in our markets for fish, the $1 billion community adjustment fund will help address the adjustment pressures felt in the many fishing and coastal communities. Working with regional development agencies, such as ACOA and CEDQ, my colleagues and I will be able to invest in initiatives that will help our fishing industry weather the storm and adjust to new market demands.
DFO will deliver some direct support to the fisheries and marine industries and the coastal communities that they support. Through budget 2009 the government is working to revitalize these sectors with about $400 million for vital infrastructure such as small craft harbours and the Canadian Coast Guard fleet. We are investing in these areas because they offer the most direct benefits to the Canadian economy. Our strategic investments will help our fisheries and marine sectors survive the economic crisis and be stronger as we emerge from it.
My department will boost marine safety and security through significant investments in the coast guard fleet. Funding will be used to procure 68 vessels and 30 environmental barges and to repair 40 older ships. New lifeboats will improve our search and rescue capacity, while the refurbishment of five multi-purpose vessels will enhance our fishery conservation and patrol capacity. This substantial investment will allow us to support shipbuilding across Canada. Work will be conducted in Canada and, where possible, by shipyards located within the regions of the vessels' home ports. We have vessels in every region across the country, from Victoria to Newfoundland and Labrador. Our long-term investments will renew our vital assets that save lives and support science. These investments will ensure that Canadian waters are safe, accessible, and secure.
We will continue to invest strategically in small craft harbours. As you all know, in coastal communities where fisheries are the mainstay of their existence, residents depend on these harbours to survive. Commercial fish harvesters need safe and functional harbour infrastructure to do their jobs, and coastal communities need sound harbours to survive. Our communities have been waiting a long time for this funding, and I am pleased to deliver it.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for all its efforts over the years on behalf of small craft harbours. Through your work you have focused more than one government's attention on the importance of these harbours to Canadians.
Let's not forget our government's investments in science and the north. Budget 2009 includes funding for northern research facilities in the High Arctic, and I'm pleased to report that DFO will contribute, through a special allocation of funding, to help speed up the construction of a small craft harbour in Pangnirtung. Not only will this bring vital job opportunities to northerners, but it will help expand and grow commercial fisheries in the north. Investments such as these in key areas will help minimize the impact of the economic downturn as much as possible, and that's what Canadians want.
I truly feel that the only way to achieve economic prosperity and conservation and sustainability objectives is to engage our stakeholders. No one organization should work in isolation. Constant communication and engagement is the way we work today, and we must excel at it. When communicating, we will be clear about our resource management objectives, we will make our science accessible, and we will involve our partners. I can't emphasize enough how important it is to have all the players at the table. Those voices will be heard.
Likewise, I want to hear from this committee about the issues that matter to people in your provinces. You have the pulse of this country and you know what's important to Canadians with regard to fisheries and oceans.
My department will support our goals by working with harvesters on renewing our policies, policies that will allow them greater flexibility in managing their enterprises. We will continue to work on the stability and predictability of our fisheries management. We will improve our regulatory framework, and we will work with financial institutions to provide greater certainty.
These are just some of the steps we will be taking to ensure the sustainability of the resource. Economic prosperity can't be achieved without sustained and sustainable resources.
Environmental issues increasingly have an impact on our markets. For example, we all know that certification and traceability are key to ensuring access to international markets. DFO will work with industry to help demonstrate the sustainability of Canada's fish and seafood products. Our cooperative efforts will help protect and expand access to domestic and foreign markets.
On the international stage, we will continue to work with other countries to stop overfishing and illegal fishing, and we will use our conservation and protection resources wisely while encouraging our own harvesters to be better managers of our public resources. Our efforts in working with other countries are paying off. As a testament to this, we recently ratified an agreement on changes to the Pacific Salmon Treaty with the U.S., which will help ensure long-term sustainability of the Pacific salmon stocks.
Also on the international stage, we will continue to defend the Canadian seal hunt. recently led a Canadian delegation to the European Union to fight a proposed ban on our country's seal products. The group laid out the facts about Canada's seal hunts to the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament. Our presentation was based on science, sound management practices, and actual harvesting practices. We will be watching closely as the European Union makes decisions, which could come as early as April. Under my leadership, Canada will continue to defend sealers and harvesting practices. We will dispel myths and promote the truth.
Canada's aquacultural sector will also offer new opportunities for coastal communities. DFO will continue to work with the aquacultural industry to develop a sustainable sector that encourages growth. Looking forward, DFO will focus on bolstering the economic viability of our fisheries and marine sectors. Budget 2009 and our departmental priorities will ensure that these sectors continue to provide economic benefits for Canadians. Together we will help these sectors to become even more resilient, effective, and competitive.
I look forward to guidance from this committee to build the strongest sustainable fishery as possible with jobs for Canadians from coast to coast.
Thank you very much for having me here again. I'll be happy to take your questions, and hopefully we'll have your answers.
Minister Shea, congratulations on your election victory and being appointed to cabinet. You have a very important portfolio for the Atlantic region and for the area that I represent. I can only echo what my colleague had to say. We certainly hope things go well.
I may as well give you the questions and then you can answer them.
I think you're fully aware that there's quite a suspected problem in the price of lobsters in Prince Edward Island this year. I think you were involved, in a previous life, in amalgamation of processing plants. How do you feel that worked? How do you feel about the consolidation of the lobster fishery?
I would like you to deal with issues such as, if fishermen have 300 traps, two of them can go together and fish 500 traps. This is one of the pilot projects. I would like you to deal with that.
Also, what is your view of the points in the 10-point plan? There are a number of things in the 10-point plan that are of great concern to fishermen.
There's a lot of money being spent. We're going into deficit in the federal government, and I believe rightly so, to assist industries across Canada, but the fisheries are also an industry, and a very important industry, where I come from. Looking at the south side, area 26A in particular, and other areas around Prince Edward Island, is there an intent to put in place a buyout for the lobster industry in Prince Edward Island? That would allow the people left in the industry to survive and would give a decent retirement to the people who leave.
In any time left you can indicate what you plan to do on the financing, looking at the situation where our processors dealt with banks in Iceland and now they can't do that. Where are they going to get their financing?
Thank you very much.
:
Thank you very much for those questions. Of course, they are all important.
Many of you know that Mr. MacAulay and I are from the same province.
I'll start by responding to your question on the stacking of lobster licences. I do believe that industry consultation is key to what happens in the industry. All of us around this table will still have a paycheque next year, or next week, or next month, no matter what changes are made to the fishery. I believe that changes that are made should come from the fishers themselves. I believe they will better take ownership of the management of the fishery.
Stacking is a policy in place available to those who fish out of Southwest Nova. One element of that policy, which has been in place for quite a while, is that two fishers can share one boat but fish 150% of the traps as opposed to 200% of the traps, so it actually takes some traps out of the water.
As a measure, I guess, to help with the viability of fleets, there were a couple of other situations proposed, which some of the fishers have taken up. One is that one person could actually own two licences and fish 150% of the traps. That's currently in place in Southwest Nova. There's a third option whereby one captain could fish on his licence and another person's licence, with 150% of the gear, but the second captain did not need to be on the boat. Those measures were put in place to help with the economic viability. At the time, fuel prices were very high. Those are options that were available in Southwest Nova, and they're currently not available anywhere else. They're not available in P.E.I. simply because they haven't been discussed with the fishermen in P.E.I.
On the 10-point plan, I will say—and this is the same thing as I said about stacking—I believe the changes and the conservation need to come from the bottom up. I believe the fishermen need to be consulted. A number of items were put on the table for consideration. I have said to the different fisheries groups that it's up to them to go through these different items that were put before them for consideration, and they would come up with what was doable for them.
The issue of rationalization has come up, particularly right in the Northumberland Strait, on both sides of the strait, in LFA 25 and LFA 26A. There are a number of different ways that rationalization can take place. Some of it has taken place on both sides, both in New Brunswick and P.E.I. out of LFA 25 in past years. I have said that I will work with the different groups. There is the community adjustment fund to help industries such as the fishery, and I hope we'll be able to take full advantage of that fund.
When it comes to the processors, difficulties in getting financing have been addressed in the budget under a measure called the business credit access program, which is basically a government guarantee that would allow private banks and private lenders some security in what they may see as otherwise a more risky venture when it comes to lending. So it should make credit more accessible to processors.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Minister, congratulations not only on your election but on your selection as fisheries minister. You're now the sixth minister I get a chance to question. I see David Bevan here. It's good to have some continuity here. I have many questions to ask you, but the chair will cut me off on a lot.
First of all, congratulations. It's not an easy task that you have. It's very difficult with all the various wheels in your department.
There are several issues. If possible later on, I'd like you to set up a meeting on the Pacific Salmon Treaty. We were advised during last year that we would have a full and open debate in the House of Commons on the treaty before it was signed. Unfortunately, due to timing and the election, that wasn't possible, so I'd like to be able to do that.
Regarding the coast guard, page 10 of the estimates shows forecast spending for 2007-08 at $739.5 million. Then it increases, but in 2010-11 it goes way down to $698 million. That's a loss of $41 million to the coast guard. As my colleague the Liberal counterpart suggested, we've been asking successive governments for years for the midshore vessels, and we keep getting disappointed. Yes, we appreciate the small amount for the smaller vessels. We appreciate the fact that it will assist some of the yards. But the reality is that $22 billion was required for all of shipbuilding, not just for the coast guard but for naval vessels as well. So in the planned spending for the coast guard, shown on page 10, why is there a reduction? That's my first question.
Second, as you may be aware, the government is planning to have the British Columbia Pacific north coast integrated management area host the PNCIMA forum in March. Various groups are concerned that there may not be adequate funding to host that event and get it off the ground properly. I'm just wondering if indeed the department will fund it adequately to ensure that the process already set will carry through.
I have two other quick questions for you.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia's decision on aquaculture the other day is going to have far-reaching effects if this thing stands, not just in B.C. but across the country. I know you have to have time to study these things, so I'd like your comments on that.
Last—although there are many more, of course—the report on the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation of Winnipeg was supposed to be ready. I'm wondering if it's possible to have that report and what the conclusions of the department would be on that report.
Thank you, Minister. I have more, but I'll be cut off, and apparently you have to leave. Again, congratulations on your post.
:
That's correct, Mr. Chair.
I certainly want to pass on my congratulations as well, Minister. As a caucus colleague, I certainly wish you all the best in your role, and long may you serve as our Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in a Conservative government.
Furthermore, I'd also like to extend my best wishes to Michelle and also best wishes to Claire on recent developments in your careers. I want to thank you for what you do on behalf of fishermen across our great country.
Minister, I'm going to ask you some questions in regards to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act and the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. Before being accompanied by Dave Van Kesteren, I used to be the only member of this committee who actually represented a riding that was inside the jurisdiction of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act, and I believe I still am. I don't think Dave's actually in the area, although he does represent an Ontario riding.
In the last session of Parliament we talked extensively about small craft harbours, and part of our study took us to Gimli, Manitoba. We spoke with fishermen there. I took that opportunity to ask questions not only about small craft harbours but also about what the effect is of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act. Furthermore, in the last session of Parliament we did instruct the George Morris Centre and had a report commissioned where we had some feedback, and if you take a look at the media that's happened since then, it came to light to the committee that there were lots of opportunities. I think the jury is out on whether the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act is good or bad. I think there are some positive things there and I think there are some places where some improvements could be made.
In light of the fact that the testimony we heard resulted in fishermen actually bushing fish or throwing fish away, in light of the fact that we have media releases coming from Transcona or from the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation that we've shut down the delivery of walleye or something like that simply because of increased stocks.... We have orderly marketing of fish, but fishermen don't have orderly catching of fish, which is one of the issues.
So I guess my question to you, Minister, is this. What are your plans or what objectives do you have in light of the fact of that report that came in? Some of the recommendations that are in that report and some of the testimony we've heard here at this committee would certainly lead us to believe that there could be some improvements made, and I'm just wondering what your plans and priorities are for the next little while in regard to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and that act.
I congratulate our new minister and I thank her for coming to visit our committee today.
[English]
Madam Minister, you mentioned in your opening remarks your commitment to bolster the aquaculture sector. In my west coast riding there are many ports and many fishermen and fisherwomen, and there are also many fish. We have several aquaculture farms that are a growing source of controversy. Maclean's magazine reported on this last week, and there was yesterday's decision of the B.C. Supreme Court, which gives the governments a year to respond to the decision that the province doesn't have at least sole jurisdiction over aquaculture.
Advocates believe that fish farms create a viable source of food and that it's a lucrative industry for investors, employment is created, and government officials appreciate the tax revenue. At the same time, critics claim that natural fish stocks are decreasing in proportion to the increase in farmed fish.
Madam Minister, I have four related questions.
First--and you've already answered this to some degree--in light of yesterday's decision, what do you see as the federal government's jurisdiction in aquaculture?
Second, do you have any legislation in mind that would affect fish farming?
Third, what plans do you have to investigate the relationship between aquaculture and natural fish stocks?
Fourth, I understand you were in British Columbia in the last few months. I wonder if you can tell us something about the findings from your trip as those findings relate to aquaculture.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
One of the key issues facing the fishing industry is access to capital, but as well they're struggling with this point: how can we minimize our costs without compromising conservation and get through this credit crunch?
One of the solutions that have been suggested is the concept known as the buddying-up system. There is a provision, a course of action being taken by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and supported by many fishermen. It is an exercise called “combining”, whereby one enterprise would buy out another enterprise, and the value of those licences or the quota attached to them could be combined into one enterprise.
I'm not hearing any particularly strong dissent to that particular issue. I think people welcome it, generally speaking. One of the major points that have been raised is to the department's reaction to a parallel system called buddying-up, whereby instead of actually formally buying each other out, enterprises would simply act in partnership with each other and buddy up. They'd use one boat, expend less in capital, less in cost, take exactly the same amount of fish out of the water as they normally would, but simply at a reduced cost. That seems to make an awful lot of sense.
I understand that there's a division between the less-than-40-foot vessels and the over-40-foot vessels. The department is prepared, I understand, to allow vessels less than 40 feet in length to continue the practice of buddying up, but it would be significantly restricted. The leasing provisions would be eliminated, and only two enterprises would be allowed the buddying up. Normal practice has been that up to four enterprises would buddy up, and in fact because of the availability of this option, in several instances an enterprise of core fishermen may have actually structured the business operations so that they could continue. Four fishermen, four enterprises would structure their business operations to allow them to continue buddying up.
By suspension of this option, what the department is effectively doing is forcing now, in the middle of a financial crisis, for fishermen to go out and buy a 40-foot vessel in order to properly.... He can still use his speedboat, but now he has to buy a 40-foot vessel. Fishermen just do not see the logic in this. They see it has no impact whatsoever on conservation, but a huge impact on their bottom line.
Perhaps, Mr. Bevan, you could explain this a bit further. What exactly is the intention of the department? In regard to the vessels larger than 40 feet, why are you preventing vessels larger than 40 feet from participating in any buddying-up exercise whatsoever?
Ms. d'Auray, let me take this opportunity to thank you for your fine cooperation for all the time that you have been in this position.
Welcome to Ms. Dansereau and to these gentlemen.
In her presentation, the minister mentioned something about Employment Insurance to which I have to object. Five additional weeks are being added to the end of a period of Employment Insurance for the workers, the fishers and those in the plants that depend on the fishery, but these people do not benefit at all.
When the Employment Insurance period starts, the fishers have accumulated some small savings so that they can do their work, but they have to use it waiting for benefits because of the two-week waiting period. We asked for the two-week waiting period to be eliminated so that the fishers can put some savings aside in order to maintain their standard of living. I am not even asking the question, because you cannot answer it. But I see the situation as deplorable.
On another matter, the Coast Guard is apparently receiving $25 million to make up for the rise in the price of petroleum products. Those costs are now dropping significantly. Is the Coast Guard going to keep this money for other activities, or, if there is a surplus, does it have to return the money to the public purse?
:
Okay. I have a couple of other questions.
Last year there were discussions about seven possible harbours for the Nunavut area. We notice in the budget that there was more development for Pangnirtung, and I'm sure that's greatly appreciated. But I spoke to a Nunavut representative yesterday and he asked me to ask you about the other six. I know you're working with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development regarding that. Where is that process now for the additional six wharves in Nunavut?
As well, as you know, I've been quite critical of previous and current governments regarding schedule 2 of the mining act, which basically puts the Fisheries Act to the side and allows certain mining companies to destroy perfectly healthy aquatic systems, as we see in Sandy Pond and Trout Lake in Newfoundland, and there are other lakes across the country that are slated, and some in Baffin Island have already been destroyed. With everybody now talking about the so-called shovel-ready projects, if I were a fish, a shovel would make me very nervous because it disrupts my habitat.
But I notice on page 55 of the report on plans and priorities, in regard to conservation and protection of fish habitat, for this year it's $32.8 million, but it's dropping to $28.8 million, so there's a loss of $4 million there.
As well, on page 52, the human resources for oceans management, habitat, science, and program enablers are scheduled to have 1,389 full-time equivalents, and you're going down to 1,324. That would lead somebody to believe that habitat and oceans management may be taking a bit of a hit financially on this one. Can you explain why those two areas are coming down?
Also, what is the government planning to do regarding schedule 2? I've been to Sandy Pond, and in my view, what they plan to do to that beautiful aquatic system is simply not on. Yet the department's role is the protection of fish and fish habitat. We hear the department constantly say that's what we need to do, yet we see evidence where some habitat is allowed to be destroyed for other reasons. Can you comment on that, please?
By the way, Michelle, thank you for the work you've done. Good luck on your move to where you're going.
To the associate, you can get rid of “associate” and just call yourself the deputy minister now. So there you go. Congratulations.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Stoffer.
I'll tackle a number of those and I may ask a couple of my colleagues.
With regard to the harbours in Nunavut, I understand the pressures and the interest of the Nunavut government, but it is the first time that we would be building one harbour or one wharf in the north. The costs and techniques around that are quite significant, so our goal is to get one done and to get it done as quickly as we can.
It's important because around Pangnirtung there is commercial fishing activity, not that there wouldn't be as a result of the others once they were built, but this one is a pretty important one, and we want to get it right and get it done as quickly as possible. As you know, construction season and airlifting the equipment and all of that takes a fair amount of time and organization. It's not that we couldn't handle all seven, but we'll start with the one. It doesn't mean that the others won't get done, but we'll focus on this one to begin with.
With regard to the question of habitat and the schedules for the MMERs, as we call them, and the tailings ponds, it's always a balancing act of having development and, at the same time, what is the best way in which to deal with tailings effluents and results. A number of techniques are used in different parts of the world, but every time we come up with the assessment of the cost-benefit and the security around enclosing tailings, the most effective way is to do it in an existing water body. We don't make those decisions and recommendations lightly. We always have extensive discussions with the companies involved in order to be able to make sure there is a significant compensation plan around them.
There are a number of these. At this point, there are seven. We have a fairly significant number of other developments that are not using tailings ponds as a means of addressing the issue as a result of mining waste disposal. But every time we do an assessment of some of the most significant impacts of tailings and we look at what is the most effective way of containing them, putting the tailings in a water body is, in fact, one of the most effective and secure ways of making sure the tailings do not seep. For example, if we put some on land in containment, we've often found that they seep into the water tables, which is a worse case scenario than putting them in a natural water body that is self-contained.