Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 1 - Evidence - March 16, 2010
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 16, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 5:02 p.m., pursuant to rule 88 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Danielle Labonté, Clerk of the Committee: Welcome to the organization meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Honourable senators, as clerk of your committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair. I am ready to receive a motion to that effect.
Senator Poy: I nominate Senator Rompkey as chair.
Ms. Labonté: Are there any other nominations?
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Poy and seconded by Senator Cochrane that the Honourable Senator Rompkey do take the chair of this committee.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Labonté: I declare the motion carried.
I invite the Honourable Senator Rompkey to take the chair.
Senator Bill Rompkey (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: We have an agenda to go through, honourable senators. The second item of business is the election of a deputy chair. I am open for nominations.
Senator Greene: I nominate Senator Patterson.
The Chair: Are there any further nominations?
Senator Poy: I nominate Senator Cochrane.
Senator Cochrane: I decline.
The Chair: Are there further nominations? There being no further nominations, I think we can consider nominations closed and declare Senator Patterson elected deputy chair. Congratulations.
We have to go through a few other motions. The next motion is:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the chair, the deputy chair, and one other member of the committee, to be designated after the usual consultation; and
That the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witness, and to schedule hearings.
Will someone make that motion?
Senator Hubley: I so move.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Item 4 is a motion that the committee publish its proceedings; and that the chair be authorized to set the number of printed copies to meet demand. Do I have a mover?
Senator Patterson: I so move.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Item 5 is a motion to hold meetings and to receive evidence when quorum is not present:
That, pursuant to rule 89, the chair be authorized to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the publication of the evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that a member of the committee from both the government and the opposition be present.
Senator Cochrane: I so move.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Item 6 is motion for the financial report:
That the committee adopt the draft first report, prepared in accordance with rule 104.
Has the report been distributed?
Ms. Labonté: Yes.
The Chair: Senators have a copy of the report. It is the usual report to cover costs of transportation and communications, professional and other services, all other expenditures and witnesses' expenses.
Why do we pay witnesses' expenses?
Ms. Labonté: These expenses occurred at the end of the last fiscal year.
The Chair: They are not from the current budget.
Ms. Labonté: They were in the budget in the previous year but not in the budget this year. A small amount of money needed to be paid.
The Chair: Senators, the total is $262,922, which is standard. We will have to decide how to use it. We will ask the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration for that amount.
Ms. Labonté: Those expenses are last year's expenses.
The Chair: These expenses have been incurred.
Do I have a motion?
Senator Patterson: I so move.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Item 7 is for research staff. I need a motion that the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign analysts to the committee. I would say not any old analyst because we would like to have Claude Emery assigned to the committee again. Without Claude, we cannot operate.
Senator Cochrane: I move that the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign Claude Emery to the committee.
The Chair: I have a motion:
That the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign Claude Emery;
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to retain the services of such experts as may be required by the work of the committee; and
That the chair, on behalf of the committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries and draft reports.
Senator Cochrane: I so move.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Item 8 authorizes the committee to commit funds and certify accounts. I need a motion:
That, pursuant to section 7, chapter 3:06 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority to commit funds be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair and the clerk of the committee;
That, pursuant to section 8, chapter 3:06 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority for certifying accounts payable by the committee be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair and the clerk of the committee; and
That, notwithstanding the foregoing, in cases related to consultants and personnel services, the authority to commit funds and certify accounts be conferred jointly on the chair and deputy chair.
The motion is standard.
Senator Watt: I so move.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Item 9 is about travel. I need a motion:
That the committee empower the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure to designate, as required, one or more members of the committee and/or such staff as may be necessary to travel on assignment on behalf of the committee.
Senator Patterson: I so move.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Item 10 is on the designation of members travelling on committee business. I need a motion:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to:
1) determine whether any member of the committee is on "official business" for the purposes of paragraph 8(3)(a) of the Senators Attendance Policy, published in the Journals of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 1998; and
2) consider any member of the committee to be on "official business" if that member is: (a) attending an event or meeting related to the work of the committee; or (b) making a presentation related to the work of the committee; and
That the subcommittee report at the earliest opportunity any decisions taken with respect to the designation of members of the committee travelling on committee business.
Do I have a motion?
Senator MacDonald: I so move.
Senator Watt: Can this travel be interpreted as not necessarily committee work but related to committee work or to Senate matters?
The Chair: It must be related to committee work. It says: "That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to determine whether any member of the committee is on "official business." I would say the line should finish with, "on behalf of the committee."
Senator Greene: The member can attend an event or meeting related to the work of the committee.
The Chair: That is right. For example, someone might want to attend the annual meeting of a fisheries association.
Senator Watt: Are conferences included?
The Chair: That is a judgment call. It is up to the steering committee to determine authorization for a conference. I do not know the answer.
Senator Watt: We can leave it at that.
The Chair: Let us leave it without an answer for now.
I have a mover for the motion. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Item 11 is for travelling and living expenses of witnesses.
I need a motion:
That, pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witness expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for one witness from any one organization and payment will take place upon application, but that the chair be authorized to approve expenses for a second witness, should there be exceptional circumstances.
I have a question for the clerk: There was an amount of money in the Senate budget for witnesses apart from committee budgets. Is that situation still the case?
Ms. Labonté: Yes.
The Chair: Witnesses' expenses do not come out of our budget, per se.
Ms. Labonté: That is right, but we approve the expenses.
The Chair: The money comes out of another subvention. We authorize the witnesses but we do not pay for them.
Ms. Labonté: This situation has been the case since April 1, 2009.
The Chair: Do I have a mover?
Senator Poy: I so move.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is agreed.
Communications is the next item. I need a motion:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to direct communications officers assigned to the committee in the development of communications plans where appropriate and to request the services of the Senate communications directorate for the purposes of their development and implementation; and
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to allow such coverage at its discretion.
Do I have a mover?
Senator Watt: I so move.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is agreed.
The next item is the time slot. My suggestion is that we approve the first two lines but not the third line. The first two lines, read: Tuesday, when the Senate rises, but not before 5 p.m., to 7 p.m.
I think we are all agreed on that time.
As I listened to conversations today, there does not seem to be a ground swell of support for the third line: Thursday at 8 a.m. to 10 a.m.
Senator Greene: Is there a reason why they tried to change it?
The Chair: I talked to Senator Di Nino at lunch. The change was is regard conflicts but we have had conflicts before. Senator Cochrane had a conflict with the Social Affairs Committee in the past but we managed it. We will never find a perfect schedule and there will always be conflicts. We manage conflicts and not everyone shows up at every meeting at the same time.
My suggestion is to ask for our old slot back at 10:45 on Thursdays because we do not always use that slot anyway. This slot is our normal one and we want it only if we need it.
My suggestion is that we approve the first two lines but not the third line.
Do I have a mover?
Senator Manning: I so move.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Poirier: Are we meeting this Thursday morning?
The Chair: No, I do not think so.
Senator Poirier: I had a full agenda and this item was not on it. I was wondering.
Senator Watt: Are we eliminating Thursdays all together?
The Chair: No, we are leaving it silent at the call of the chair. We are hoping to go back to our 10:45 slot.
Senator Watt: Regardless of which way we look at it, there will be a conflict somewhere.
The Chair: That is correct.
There is other business. I suggest that the first item of other business be to elect a third person for the steering committee. Is that agreed? I am open to nominations for the third person on the steering committee.
Senator Patterson: I nominate Senator MacDonald.
The Chair: Senator MacDonald has been nominated. Are there other nominations? We will close nominations, then.
Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Senator Manning has been elected as the —
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I always get the Irish and the Scots mixed up. It is a failing of mine. I am sorry. Senator MacDonald, you are elected, sir.
I suggest that we discuss briefly where we might go with this committee. I propose we go around the table for members to make some comments as to ideas for the committee to pursue. Then we will have a steering committee meeting. We will sift through ideas and come back to the committee with a plan of action. That is my suggestion.
Is that agreeable?
Senator Watt: Are you willing to hear recommendations, or you do not want to hear them now?
The Chair: That is what I mean: We go around the table and people say what they think the committee should talk about. We cannot do everything, so steering will have to make decisions as to where we go from here.
Senator Manning: I have a suggestion, and it is something we can study. However, before making that suggestion, I will refer back to the slot for regular meetings first. On Tuesday, we have slotted 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., and there is a question mark about Thursdays and whether we can accommodate a Thursday meeting.
I want to leave it to the discretion of the chair. If we need to extend our meetings on Tuesday to 8 o'clock, it will be easier than trying to arrange another meeting and have witnesses come at 8 a.m. on Thursday. We can go to three hours on Tuesday evening. If we cannot arrange a meeting at the regular slot on Thursday, no one will panic.
I am sure that possibility is something to think about. Once we are here, we are here.
Last year, the government announced the modernizing of the lighthouses around Canada. That issue is a major one in Newfoundland and Labrador, in Atlantic Canada, and I am sure, also in Quebec, New Brunswick and on the West Coast of our country. After some discussion with the public, the minister decided to put the initiative on hold for the time being. That decision is a major concern with many people in Newfoundland and Labrador, and it was brought up even during our winter break.
The issue is something we might work on and maybe present a report. There is a lot of concern out there in relation to the modernization of the lighthouses and not having personnel there, and whether every lighthouse can be automated or whether only some can be. There is a safety point of view regarding fishing vessels and so on around our coastlines.
The issue would provide for an interesting discussion, and it is a country-wide issue. We can make recommendations to the minister and the department. I did some research and work has been done in the past, but I do not know if the research has been as detailed as we need, especially if we want to make decisions on closing down some lighthouses and modernizing others.
I throw out that suggestion, and it might create interest around the table, as it affects all of us in our home provinces.
Senator Hubley: I want to —
The Chair: Hang on. I am sorry. I have a list. Next is Senator Nancy Ruth.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Being a Great Lakes lass, I am concerned about bulk water exports. Senator Carney's point about the free trade agreement and who has the authority within the Canadian government to export our water is of concern to me.
As I remember, her arguments were that the authority was with the minister, with no reference to Parliament. I would like to have another look at this issue and find out what the facts are. The general area of bulk water exports interests me, because I am sure the United States will be looking forward to it.
Senator Cochrane: I have a question for Senator Manning. Does his suggestion mean we meet once a week?
The Chair: I think Senator Manning suggested we extend our Tuesdays until such time as we negotiate the Thursday slot.
Senator Manning: If need be.
The Chair: I assume there will be negotiations, and not only with this committee. Others will want to negotiate with the whips, as well. Until such time as we have negotiated a reasonable Thursday slot, we take the opportunity to extend the Tuesday slot, if needed.
Senator Manning: On the Defence Committee, we have slotted from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Mondays. That slot does not necessarily mean we sit from 4 to 8. If we have two witnesses, we might sit from 4 until 6 or from 4 until 7. However, at least the time slot is there in case we need it.
Due to scheduling conflicts with other committees, we may not be able to have another time on Thursday, so it might be better to have our schedule in place.
Senator Cochrane: I have another suggestion, something that has taken place recently in Boston. I think our Fisheries Committee should be part of the International Boston Seafood Show. I was there with Senator Jack Marshall years ago. It is a fabulous show. Newfoundlanders are involved, as well as other Canadians, and it is the highlight of the fishing industry. I think the Fisheries Committee should be part of that show. It happens once a year and it recently took place. Claude was there before.
Claude Emery, Analyst, Library of Parliament: It usually takes place in the first week of March if I am not mistaken, so it is over now.
Senator Cochrane: It has recently wrapped up. Next year we could put it on our agenda.
Senator Raine: What would we do there?
Senator Cochrane: Different display booths are set up by everyone, not only by Canadians. The show is an exhibition really.
Senator Nancy Ruth: We could learn and tell.
Senator Cochrane: Exactly; it is a showcase.
Senator Manning: There are marketing companies from all around the world. It is a showcase of their products to the world.
Senator Raine: What would the role of the Senate committee be?
Senator Cochrane: Can we not learn from others? We can promote our fisheries, and other companies would think of the country and see how far we have progressed as well.
Senator Watt: It is a chance to talk to individual people also.
Senator Cochrane: We can also promote our products.
Senator Raine: The committee is not in the marketing business.
Senator Manning: No, but marketing of our products in Canada may be something down the road we need to look at as a committee. That is one of the major issues Canada has now as a country.
The Chair: We have time to think about it, so I suggest we take note of that and deal with it.
Senator Watt: I am disappointed, because I have been there several times. It is a good place to learn a great deal about activities related to fish, and things of that nature.
Senator Hubley: I have a note on the Boston fish show. It is fair to see the innovation there and what research and development dollars will do for industries. Both coasts — certainly, we on the East Coast — can benefit from speaking to fishermen and marketers. I like to see how they market fish successfully. I support that suggestion.
The lighthouse on Prince Edward Island is an important structure, not only from a fisheries point of view but for tourism. We can look at sovereignty and security in lighthouses as well, and things along that line.
Senator MacDonald: Of course I support that suggestion to discuss the concerns about lighthouses across the country. I believe, perhaps with the exception of St. Paul Island — I will double-check — every lighthouse in Nova Scotia is now fully automated.
An Hon. Senator: That is right.
Senator MacDonald: There is a starting point there for examination and how things progress and where to go from here.
You may recall in our last meetings before Christmas, I discussed such things as the lifting of the drilling moratorium on Georges Bank in 2012. That specific item will be a big issue because the Americans will be aggressive when it comes to drilling on Georges Bank. In theory, it does make sense for Americans to be drilling on one side and us not to be drilling on the other. There is a bigger question here in regards to energy production offshore.
We have a situation now where much more effort will be put into wind turbine production: tidal power, for example, on the east coast and the Bay of Fundy. Nova Scotia recently announced a $100-million-plus investment in the old Trenton railcar yard where Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering, DSME, in conjunction with the provincial and the federal government, will build both wind turbines and the towers. My understanding is, from speaking to some of the principals in the company, there will be many more wind turbine farms offshore, as opposed to on land. Turbines and towers tend to be less of an issue offshore. If they are a mile or two out, they cannot be seen — out of sight, out of mind. When people see them, they become an issue. There will be a lot of growth in this area and issues coming out of this growth, and we will be well advised to be on the front end of this issue, as opposed to playing catch- up in years to come. That issue is one that should be on the agenda for discussion.
The Chair: We are making notes of all these suggestions.
Senator Raine: I want the committee to look at the pollock fishery bycatch in the Gulf of Alaska and its impact on stocks both in the Yukon and in British Columbia, especially the halibut stocks. I have looked online at a few things, and many people in Alaska are against this issue as well, but it appears that right now, there are not enough observers on the fishing boats. These boats drag on the bottom, and there is a lot of degradation of the environment. The issue is serious for the halibut stock, and I fail to understand, when this type of fishing is so destructive, why it is allowed to proceed. The only thing I can think of is that whoever has the money pays to have their way.
From the blogs I have been reading of people who live in Alaska, they are almost begging the Canadians to shut them down. I believe, right now the halibut treaty is the oldest fishing treaty in Canada between Canada and the U.S., and that treaty takes the biomass and divides it between the two countries, but the biomass is significantly decreased by American fishermen killing all the halibut and the bycatch, and that kill is not coming out of their quota but decreasing the total quota for Canadians. We are losing hundreds of millions of dollars because the fish stock is diminishing. I think we need to take a serious look at that issue.
Senator Watt: Does that issue apply only to halibut, or does it apply to salmon too?
Senator Raine: The salmon in the Yukon River are suffering because of it as well.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I know nothing about fisheries so I will put that information out there.
One of my dreams for the Senate is that, before we pick a study, we invite experts in — and it sounds like there are many around this table — to find out the value added before we pick the study. What difference will it make if the Senate studies X, Y or Z issue? I wish all committees would take that approach rather than studying their favourite issues. I put that suggestion out there for the steering committee to consider.
Senator Raine: I agree with Senator Nancy Ruth. We could have our researchers take a quick look and give us more information on these different subjects to see if they are worth studying.
Senator Cochrane: That suggestion applies where there is value added.
Senator Patterson: I recommend that we look at the lighthouse issue. It was last studied, I believe, by our committee in 1999, and the motion made at the time from this committee was that there be a moratorium on further de-staffing of light stations and the moratorium should be extended until such time as it can be demonstrated that the automated weather detection systems are consistently reliable.
There are now, I understand, approximately 50 staffed lighthouses, on both the East and West Coasts, in Newfoundland and Labrador and in B.C. I think there are 23 in Newfoundland and Labrador and 27 in B.C. These communities are isolated. I think it is timely, as other senators have said, to see at the issue of how the automated system is working. That is one bit of useful work the committee can do.
I also am aware of the pollock fishery bycatch, because it has had big implications on the salmon stocks in Yukon. I have a news story here from February of last year about a significant bycatch, allegedly up to 122,000 Chinook salmon in 2007, a significant and growing number, up from 32,000 in 2002.
Maybe the issue here is not only on this coast. I do not know if there are other cross-border fisheries management issues that we can roll into this one. This issue is, of course, between the Americans and Canadians, but perhaps we can roll other cross-border issues into this one. I endorse pursuing that subject, as Senator Raine has recommended.
The last issue, chair, is the question of sovereignty. I gratefully acknowledge the work of this committee in the Arctic. I have spoken to members of this committee who say it is time to focus elsewhere, perhaps, but I want to mention a major initiative now under way under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to resolve circumpolar boundaries between Alaska in the United States, the Soviet Union and other Nordic countries. I believe everyone knows that Minister Lawrence Cannon is hosting a meeting of the Arctic coastal states near Ottawa on March 29 to find a peaceful way of resolving these issues based on science, on the continental shelf, and on international law principles for determining international boundaries.
We should keep an eye on that initiative because it affects our mandate, particularly with regard to resource management. Fishing rights are at stake.
Maybe Senator Manning can help me on this information; I believe that the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence will take the lead on the issue of sovereignty, which is not at all inappropriate, but I have heard the chair of that committee say that because the issue is multifaceted, it involves more subjects than defence. It involves ocean boundaries and the continental shelf and it involves international relations. The chair of the Defence Committee said she will welcome other committees to be involved.
It is something we should keep an eye on, and perhaps at the invitation of the Defence Committee we can participate where appropriate to our mandate.
I want to put that item on the list of issues that I think impact our work.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Poirier: Being new to the committee, the subject I will talk about may have been discussed already, and it may not even be appropriate for this committee, but I will voice my thoughts and the steering committee can decide.
I am from the eastern coast of New Brunswick. The fishing industry there is lobster. Over the years, a lot has been happening in the lobster industry that is having a humongous impact on the community on the economic side and on different things. At one point, the decline in the amount of lobster available was an issue. Also, at one point a few years back, there was a process where the fishermen had an opportunity to sell their licences, their fishing boats and their rig to the government, and the government would transfer them to the Aboriginal community to give an opportunity for the Aboriginal people to go out and fish. That process lasted for a few years. Many people opted for that option because they thought it would give an opportunity to other people. However, we discovered a few years later that many people who had sold out, two or three years later ended up buying another licence or a boat from someone else. In reality, they sold their first licence but turned around and bought another. I do not know if any committee has looked into the consequences of that situation. The decline is definitely there.
In the last couple of years, we have seen a great decline in the price of lobster. Many fishermen are suffering because of that decline. I hear there is another movement now to try to eliminate or help that problem by buying out the licence this time around but not actually offering it to anyone else. The government buys the licence straight out, so that we limit the number of people who have the right to fish, to help rebuild the stock so the fishing of lobster will survive in the communities.
I do not know if the committee has looked at this issue or if it can be looked at, to recommend a solution for having a viable future in the fishing industry. Once the industry declines, it affects not only the fishermen. It affects also our fish plant workers, and it has a humongous impact on the eastern coast. New Brunswick is not the only province to have this problem. Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland and Labrador have the same problem, which is the declining price, the declining quantity that can be fished, and the increasing number of licences out there. I do not know if it is something we want to look at, but it is an issue in our area.
The Chair: We did look at it. Mr. Emery can dig out the report and let you look at it, but there is always a way of monitoring things and changes since the report. I do not think the report was extensive. We heard from fishermen: We listened and produced a brief report.
Senator Poirier: The study could be to understand the direction we are going in, and whether this direction is the right one. Has buying out the licences and reducing the number in the past affected the quantity we were able to fish? Is that the solution or should we look at other solutions? Is something else other than too many fishermen causing the problem?
We were having coastal eruptions over the years, and our temperatures are changing in Atlantic Canada. We are having more floods, storms and hurricanes. Do those events have an impact on this fishery? Maybe the problem is not the number of licences out there. Have we looked at the reasons why it is happening?
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Watt: The points I want to raise, or ask questions on, include the chair and also the researcher, Claude Emery.
Regarding all the recommendations that we have put forward up to now — that is, anything to do with fish, with the Arctic and with things of that nature, as well as a certain recommendation that the committee put forward about actions to be taken — are we satisfied with the reaction we have gotten not only from this government but also from the previous government? When the response comes back to us, are we satisfied? Can we say that the job is done, or do we need to revisit some of those areas that require a tightening up of certain recommendations?
I raise this issue because I have noticed a number of times over the years that there is a lot of information out there. No one is really collecting all that information and pulling it together into one source. When that happens, then some sort of a leadership must take place to move those areas forward. Do we need to revisit some of those areas that we have already touched on over the years?
The Chair: On your first question on the government response, I cannot speak for the previous government; only for this government. Mr. Emery can correct me, but the answers we received from the government supported 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the recommendations that we made. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Emery: That is fair to say, yes. The committee did not receive a response from its last report, though.
The Chair: No, but on the reports that we have received responses, I would say the response is not overwhelmingly positive but it is positive. Again, as I recall, the government has said that they either agree or partially agree with between 70 per cent and 80 per cent of the recommendations that we have made.
From my experience, the response has been good. Would you say that, Mr. Emery?
Mr. Emery: I would say that, yes.
Senator Watt: In the area of security, for example, the Canadian Coast Guard is one area that requires attention because of what is lacking in the North. You said that well. You have been reading the materials, and so on, and that is good. We do not necessarily have to revisit that particular aspect of one of our reports. I am not talking about the overall report. There are some reports that we are happy with. However, I am getting at whether some aspects of the reports are falling through the cracks.
Senator Raine: Perhaps we can prepare a report card by going through our recommendations and looking at whether they have been accepted, rejected, and so on.
Senator Watt: Perhaps Claude Emery can go through the reports to see what recommendations have been carried out over the years. He might be in a good position to say, "I can make this recommendation. We need to do more on this."
The Chair: Claude Emery can go through the government's response and prepare something for all of us.
Mr. Emery: The response is usually worded "agree" or "partially agree." The work is already partly done. I suggest that the committee hold a follow-up meeting on the Canadian Coast Guard and the question about the responses the committee has received thus far.
Senator Raine: Is there money in this last budget for some of the equipment that they need?
The Chair: Was there money in the budget?
Senator Raine: I think there was.
The Chair: The Vessel Traffic Reporting Arctic Canada Traffic Zone, NORDREG, was put in place. That was one recommendation we made. We said it should be made mandatory and it has been, except for ships of less than 300 tonnes. We recommended that it be mandatory for all ships. The government has made it mandatory for ships of 300 tonnes and over. Half a loaf is better than no loaf at all.
Senator Watt: I have one more item on lighthouses. The subject matter was brought to my attention a few years ago by Senator Carney, I believe, who raised this lighthouse study. I have a recommendation if we move in the direction of more lighthouses, for example. You know as well as I do, chair, that in the Arctic, whether the Arctic or the Subarctic, we do not have any lighthouses. They are important for the survival of the people. We have no lights whatsoever. We have no way of indicating where they are when they are operating in the dark. They can only hope that they make it to where they are going. That is the way that we travel.
Senator Rain: By stars and inukshuks.
Senator Watt: We do not see inukshuks at night so we have to look at the stars, yes.
The Chair: We will put that suggestion in the mix, Senator Watt.
Senator Raine: There are possibly hazardous areas that should be mapped and put on a list.
Senator Manning: Senator Patterson mentioned the meeting that Minister Cannon will have on March 29. There was some discussion around the possibility of having representatives from the Aboriginal Peoples Committee, the Defence Committee, the Fisheries and Oceans Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, and maybe other departments or committees that have had issues in the Arctic in the past, or will have in the future. I think they are trying to show that committees have common interests in the Arctic.
From a fisheries and oceans point of view, if we had three, four or five concerns or recommendations, we could present them at that time. There might be an opportunity for four or five committees to make a joint statement about the Arctic and give that statement more strength. Senator Wallin, as a member of the Defence Committee, mentioned it to me the other day. I told her that I would bring the suggestion here to the table. They are having the conference here with Minister Cannon the week of March 29. Perhaps we can look at our meeting schedule that week and have a meeting, whether we bring in officials from the Canadian Coast Guard and talk to them about their role in the Arctic or address some other type of fishery issue. We would have something related to our committee that was also related to the Arctic. Instead of having a dozen meetings, then taking two or three months to report, maybe in a couple of days we can have either a one- or two-page document listing issues in a general form to be addressed relating to the Arctic. As chair, I think that you may be approached regarding that opportunity. I wanted to give you a heads up. If the committee agrees, that is something we can put into motion for our meeting on the thirtieth. I am sure that Senator Watt and others will have a couple of issues and witnesses that we will want to bring in. We will not drag out the report. It can be a statement to coincide with the conference. It can be something to the effect that several committees in the Senate have issues with the Arctic. These are the issues and the recommendations to address those issues.
In regard to the lighthouses, Senator Watt made an interesting comment that the North does not have any lighthouses. There are some places where some individuals think there are too many. It is not easy to take a lighthouse from the south coast of Newfoundland and move it to Nunavut, but that possibility can be part of our study. There is a heritage issue with a lot of these lighthouses. My biggest concern is not so much modernizing them. I live in a coastal community where the modernization of the lighthouses is not a big issue.
The larger issue is their heritage value. For example, if the federal government were to dispose of infrastructure in a harbour, such as a wharf, to a community group or organization, according to the law or regulation they would have to bring the wharf up to today's standard, which would be good for the next 20 to 30 years. However, the same law does not apply to lighthouses. We can shut them down or let them crumble away. We can look at a dozen different issues regarding lighthouses. Some of these lighthouses are a couple of hundred years old. They hold a large heritage and cultural value for our tourism industry. There are many ways to look at that issue, and the study would be an interesting one.
The Chair: Our first lighthouse in Newfoundland was built by Canada before we were a province of Canada. That is generosity. It was an international act of hands across the border.
Senator Manning: Maybe they were checking to see if the lights were on.
Senator Zimmer: I am a replacement for Senator Dallaire. Senator Patterson raised a good point and Senator Manning addressed it too. I sat for two years on Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. Perhaps there can be a joint report. The Defence Committee looked at the security of boundaries and borders, including water borders such as the 200-mile limit. Our bent is more toward drugs, crime and immigration, but there is an invasion over the 200-mile limit. As both Senator Patterson and Senator Manning suggested, perhaps there could be sections in the respective reports of each committee that share common knowledge. It can serve to accelerate, exaggerate and support the issues that the committees are dealing with.
Senator Raine: My question is about aquaculture in British Columbia and the federal regulations. They have been consulting on the regulations and are now at the drafting and analyzing stage of the regulations. Does it make sense for this committee to look at those regulations before they are written in stone? It seems that the consultations were to end mid-February and the analyses and drafting to continue until April, followed by validation and then implementation on June 5.
I hope they are doing a good job, but I have no way of knowing. The committee provide an opportunity to put the right regulations in place so that not only is aquaculture controlled but also it is more transparent so the public has greater comfort in knowing that it is regulated properly.
The Chair: We will put that suggestion in the mix.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Language is important to me, so when we talk about lighthouses, perhaps we can describe them as "staffed," not "manned."
The Chair: There is no shortage of ideas. The steering committee will meet and sift through all of them to decide where we might begin. Obviously, with many diverse ideas, we will not be able to work on them all at once. We will report back to the full committee.
Is there further business? Hearing none, do I have a motion to adjourn?
(The committee adjourned.)