Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue No. 8 - Evidence - November 15, 2016
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 15, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 5:05 p.m. to study the federal government's policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening. My name is Fabian Manning. I'm chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and I'm delighted to welcome the minister and his staff here this evening.
Before we begin, I would like to ask senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Munson: Jim Munson, Ontario. My heart is in New Brunswick.
Senator Hubley: Elizabeth Hubley, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier, New Brunswick.
The Chair: We will be joined by other senators as they arrive from other meetings.
As I said, I welcome the minister this evening. The committee is continuing its study on issues related to the federal government's current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans.
We will be discussing the broad mandate of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. Senators will also have some questions regarding specific matters of interest to them.
Minister, welcome, and please introduce your staff and proceed with your opening remarks.
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc, P.C., M.P., Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and Canadian Coast Guard: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and honourable senators, for the privilege of appearing before your committee. This is my first appearance before your Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and I see my neighbour, Senator Stewart Olsen, is joining us. I do want to thank you for the invitation; it is a privilege. I hope it's only the first of a number of interactions that we have, and it's a forum I look forward to visiting, I hope, with your invitation on future occasions.
I want to introduce my colleagues, who many of you have known for a considerable amount of time: Catherine Blewett, Deputy Minister, Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. Before joining the senior public service in Ottawa, she was Clerk of the Executive Council in the province of Nova Scotia and joined our department a few weeks after I did, in June of this year, but it's a privilege to be working with her.
On her right is Jody Thomas, Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard. I know you have met her before.
Kevin Stringer, Associate Deputy Minister, had a number of senior jobs in the department, including one that would have come into contact with your committee in the fisheries management and ecosystems management.
They will be available to answer questions if I can't provide the level of detail you wish.
[Translation]
At the beginning of the month, I had the privilege of participating in the Senate question period. Today, I want to speak about the federal government's role in creating a prosperous, responsible and sustainable aquaculture industry.
[English]
I thought I would set out briefly for you a few of the key elements of the mandate letter that the Prime Minister gave me and made public so that Canadians and parliamentary colleagues could see the priorities we have as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.
As you know, the priorities include enhancing marine safety and marine infrastructure, investing in core science, protecting marine and coastal areas and co-managing our marine resources.
With respect to science, senators will know that, early on in our mandate, we made a significant investment in ocean and freshwater science; $197 million was set aside in Budget 2016 to help to rebuild our department's research capacity and re-establish our scientific leadership in terms of fisheries and marine ecosystems.
[Translation]
I'm mentioning the work because it will help us respond to some pending recommendations made not only by parliamentary committees, but also by the Cohen Commission, for example, regarding the West Coast and the salmon issue.
Last week, we also started consultations with Aboriginal communities and stakeholders regarding the wild salmon policy, which will help ensure the sustainability of salmon on the West Coast. With respect to the issue of scientific research on freshwater, our government will invest $1.7 million in the next two years in the Experimental Lakes Area, where projects are carried out by the International Institute for Sustainable Development.
[English]
So those are examples of some of the scientific investments, Mr. Chair, but you and colleagues probably have specific questions I'll be happy to answer.
On the subject of protecting marine and coastal areas, in my mandate letter, I was asked to work with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to increase the proportion of Canada's marine and coastal areas that are protected to 5 per cent in 2017 and 10 per cent by 2020. Approximately $81 million was set aside in the federal budget to support marine conservation activities and $42 million to develop new national parks and national marine conservation areas.
[Translation]
As you know, work is also being done to review amendments to the Fisheries Act. The goal is to restore the fish and fish habitat protection program, which was reduced or eliminated in 2012-13, and to incorporate modern safeguards into the act. We've been conducting extensive consultations regarding the work. I'm expecting to receive the final report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans by the end of February. I would also welcome your committee's advice or recommendations on how to improve the Fisheries Act, especially in terms of fish and fish habitat protection.
[English]
I also want to acknowledge, Mr. Chair, the study underway by members of this committee and the time, effort and travel that have gone into learning about the current challenges and opportunities facing maritime search and rescue and search and rescue activities in Canada.
With respect to marine safety and infrastructure, our government is making significant progress on improving marine safety and that marine infrastructure. As you will know, in May, we reopened the Kitsilano Coast Guard Base in Vancouver and expanded its search and rescue mandate to include environmental emergency response.
I know, Mr. Chair, that you will be particularly interested that, last week, we announced the re-opening of the Coast Guard's Maritime Rescue Sub-centre in St. John's, Newfoundland. We also received $6 million in the last budget to carry out a technical assessment on the Manolis L shipwreck off the coast of Newfoundland. This technical assessment has been completed, and the Coast Guard is analyzing the results to determine the next steps.
You will also know that, on November 10, late last week, my colleague Marc Garneau announced the next phase of ensuring the permanent removal of the Kathryn Spirit vessel from the shores of Beauharnois, Quebec. I know Senator Pratte had done some work on this and had spoken to me about this, but I wanted you to know that we are very much proceeding in a rigorous way. The Coast Guard and Transport Canada will continue to keep the community of Beauharnois and its officials engaged as we update the progress on this important work that was of interest to your colleague.
You will know also, senators, that the National Shipbuilding Strategy, which, in fairness, began under the previous government, will, in our view, continue to help to improve marine safety. The Coast Guard has two new offshore fisheries science vessels under construction now. Work on a third vessel is expected to begin later this year. I had the opportunity this summer, accompanied by the commissioner of the Coast Guard, to visit the Vancouver shipyard and see first-hand the progress being made in this construction.
The Coast Guard is also procuring up to 15 new search and rescue lifeboats, the first two of which are already under construction. Preliminary work to prepare for the construction of an Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel is also underway.
[Translation]
As you probably know, the Prime Minister, along with Ministers Garneau, McKenna, Brison, Foote and I, announced a new program on November 7. The new national oceans protection plan is an ambitious strategy to improve marine safety and responsible shipping, protect Canada's marine environment, and strengthen reconciliation efforts with Aboriginal people. The new measures will help increase the strength and capacities of Canada's marine safety regime.
[English]
One of the important elements of this, Mr. Chair, is partnerships with indigenous communities. In the Oceans Protection Plan, there will be significant investments in terms of helping indigenous communities along Canada's coasts to be better trained and better prepared and better equipped, including with assets supplied by the Government of Canada, to respond not only in search and rescue circumstances but also with respect to environmental response as well.
We think that indigenous peoples on the British Columbia coast, for example, are some of the best positioned and most effective first responders for environmental incidents and search and rescue activities. That's why we're working with these communities. I had the privilege, again, with the commissioner of the Coast Guard and our regional director general from the Pacific region, to visit Bella Bella a couple of weeks ago and to see first-hand the work done that was being done there. I was reminded of the importance of not only preparing these communities to respond in the horrible event of a circumstance like that but, better, to prevent those kinds of incidents from happening. We believe that the announcements last week will take us one significant step further toward making that a priority.
We are investing considerable amounts in science. As I mentioned earlier, we have a partnerships fund, which will bring together key players in the ocean and freshwater science communities. It's universities. It's aquatic research networks, environmental organizations, indigenous groups and other stakeholders in Canada as well as internationally. These partnerships will allow us to better prepare the next generation of scientists that will be able to share their remarkable work with Canadians, and that's something that we are committed to doing, as is increasing the transparency and accessibility of scientific information. We had said in the election campaign, and I announced at an event in Ottawa some weeks ago, that we were beginning to, for the first time:
[Translation]
We'll publish, for example, our annual sustainability survey for fisheries on the department's website. Through the website, Canadians can also learn more about the status of each of Canada's 159 major fish stocks and about the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' progress in implementing the sustainable fisheries framework policies.
[English]
Mr. Chair, to conclude, my final comments will be with respect to aquaculture. I know it's a subject of interest for members of your committee and for the Senate. I was pleased to respond to your important committee report on aquaculture earlier this month. I would welcome the opportunity in the questions, if senators are so inclined, to discuss it with you today.
This really was, Mr. Chair, from our perspective, an exhaustive effort. Your committee had 66 hours of hearings, 34 public hearings. You heard from 138 witnesses. Hundreds of submissions were sent to your committee. You made numerous visits to six provinces across the country and some visits internationally.
We think, as a government, that that was an outstanding report. We thought it was a credit to your committee and to the Senate. We take it seriously, and I wanted you to know from me how much we value the substance of that report, the recommendations themselves obviously, and how conscious we are of the work that all of you and your staff put into that work.
Canada has the world's longest coastline and some of the most pristine waters in the world. Aquaculture has grown into a thriving industry here in Canada. It generates, as you know, approximately 6,000 full-time jobs in coastal and indigenous communities that often have limited sources of other economic activity. Last year alone, our farmed fish exports totalled $770 million.
[Translation]
Today, ask you know, almost 50 per cent of fish and seafood consumed around the world comes from aquaculture, which means that the industry is set to experience more growth. As the government and as Canadians, we have the collective responsibility to ensure that the sector develops in an environmentally sustainable and socially responsible way.
Canada's wild fisheries are the envy of the world. We must make every effort to maintain the stocks, which are so important to Canada and the world. However, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans also has an aquaculture mandate. I think the minister and department must work on finding the right balance and supporting responsible and sustainable aquaculture, while preserving wild capture fisheries and the ecosystems in which the wild species live.
[English]
Again, Mr. Chair, I want to thank the members of this committee and the Senate for the work that went into the report, An Ocean of Opportunities: Aquaculture in Canada. According to your findings, and I think this is confirmed by information the department has, the aquaculture industry could potentially double in size over the next decade if policy changes were done in a way that allowed it to be both responsible and sustainable.
I agree with the recommendations, as I've said earlier, that your committee put forward and I've asked my department to expeditiously look at ways to address them. In fact, all of the recommendations from your committee are currently being worked on by our department and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which has a small role to play with respect to a few specific recommendations.
One of the most significant recommendations your committee made was the idea that we should introduce a federal aquaculture act that would clarify our government's role in aquaculture and simplify the maze of federal and provincial regulations currently governing this sector. Canada already has, from our perspective, a robust regulatory regime for aquaculture, but I think we all recognize, and I've said it publicly, that there is constantly and always room for improvement.
Our department is currently looking at options for establishing a more specific legislative framework for aquaculture, including the development of a federal aquaculture act. The department is working, in the coming months, with provincial and territorial partners, who will obviously have a key role to play in any successful effort in this regard. The Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers, with whom I met in Saint Andrews, New Brunswick in June, is seized of this issue. The industry itself and the scientific community are all working to determine how regulatory improvements can and should be made.
Our deputy minister, Ms. Blewett, has had conversations with her provincial and territorial counterparts, and there is a meeting in Quebec City next week where this will be raised with provincial and territorial deputy ministers.
I want you to know that this important issue is receiving the detailed, comprehensive and multi-faceted analysis that would be required of such an initiative. It will obviously require clearly defining the federal and provincial jurisdictional elements while consulting with the industry: wild fisheries stakeholders, indigenous peoples and provincial and territorial partners, as I said.
As a government, we believe that aquaculture can and must play an important role in providing the protein necessary to feed a global population that the United Nations says, I think, by 2050 will reach 9 billion people. Aquaculture around the world has to have a key part, in our view, in providing safe and quality protein and food for these citizens of an increasingly smaller planet. Canada should and can be a global leader in sustainable and responsible aquaculture development, and none of this should or can take away from our responsibility to properly manage and protect wild fish stocks and a fishing industry that is also the envy of the world in terms of some wild species that continue also to play a critical role in that very effort.
Mr. Chair, I had a few more pages of notes but I'm conscious that colleagues will have questions. It's a brief opportunity but I hope not the only one I will have to meet and work with members of your committee. As a final comment, Mr. Chair, if ever individual senators on this committee or you as a standing committee have specific issues or questions on which they would like information, I would always be happy to arrange the appropriate briefing, officials or any people from my office best positioned to provide senators with the information that you need to do your jobs, in the interest of Canadians. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Certainly, we might have an invitation again for you to appear again, depending on what happens here today, so we'll see how things go.
Thank you for your comments on the aquaculture report. Our committee put a lot of time and effort into that, and we are delighted to learn that the department is moving ahead and looking at some of the recommendations. It is certainly something we will be following up on in the future.
And as a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, I want you to thank you for the announcement of the reopening of the sub-centre in our province. It is welcome news, and I want to take the opportunity to congratulate Minister Foote on her efforts, which I know were very important.
Mr. LeBlanc: The media and public focused on the St. John's Marine Rescue Sub-Centre, which was important, but what was exciting about that announcement was that we also added lifeboat stations in Twillingate and Baie Verte, which are permanent Coast Guard installations. There are radar facilities being set up, and we are renovating the Coast Guard station in St. Anthony.
We hope it is a significant investment in your province, which has, understandably, some of the more pressing search and rescue needs in the country. It was a happy day a week ago yesterday to be in St. John's.
The Chair: As usual, the first question is from our deputy chair.
Senator Hubley: Minister, thank you very much for being here, and your staff as well.
I want to ask you about an issue of concern to Prince Edward Island fishers, namely the need for a review of the bluefin tuna quota. As you well know, the annual allocation of the quota is always contentious. There is often criticism that the distribution should be more equitable. For instance, P.E.I. has about half of Canada's tuna fishers, but in allocations of the past got just 30 per cent of the quota. There has been concern about the lack of consultation by the department during the decision-making process on aspects of the bluefin management plan. The P.E.I. Fishermen's Association has been advocating for a tuna quota review so that all fleets have the opportunity to present their positions.
Late last summer, in 2015, your predecessor indicated that she would initiate a ministerial review of the distribution of the bluefin tuna allocation. It is something that has been promised over the years, including in 2003 when Minister Thibault announced that allocations would be periodically reviewed.
I know that DFO made no mention of a review in its 2016 bluefin tuna management plan, which was released July 6. I also know that PEIFA has met with you and written to you requesting a review but has not received a reply. Can you tell us when we may expect that you and your officials will begin a tuna quota review?
Mr. LeBlanc: Senator Hubley, you are absolutely right. Regarding the bluefin tuna quota allocation, I'm learning about the difficult puzzles where you take a certain allocation. The department has a whole bunch of different principles over time that previous ministers going back a number of generations would use around these allocations. I tease my officials sometimes that it seems that if we are trying to get a certain objective, then we can use historical shares, and if we're looking at another thing, we'll talk about adjacency. There are all these different principles that overlap and often contradict each other. That is true.
You are right, senator, that when I met the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association in the summer and then sat with them at their table at the Charlottetown Festival, they raised it with me and, in fairness, it is something that I heard about from fishers also from my own province of New Brunswick. I'm always happy to listen to and understand where people feel that there are elements of unfairness or allocations that, perhaps, don't represent the appropriate balance in terms of what has existed in the past or what different groups feel should be an equitable distribution.
I know that, as we sit here today, the international commission is having meetings in Portugal, I believe, where a number of issues, not necessarily the allocation of the Canadian quota, but a number of issues, globally, around this iconic species are being discussed. I look forward to seeing the results of that meeting.
But I would be open to hearing and understanding from all interested parties, not only Prince Edward Island, but other people who would be affected.
My only concern, senator, is that — and I learned this around halibut, for example — you want to accommodate what is a particular concern for halibut fishermen in Richibucto, New Brunswick, or the Acadian Peninsula where Senator Poirier would know some of these people. Then you realize that to take a certain amount of halibut they think should be theirs, you have to take it from some halibut fisher in Newfoundland or Quebec. It's like chair legs: If the chair's a bit wobbly and you start trying to cut the chair legs to even out the chair, you finish pretty quickly with a chair that has no legs. That's the sort of complicated piece.
I don't know if Kevin Stringer or somebody has something to add.
I hear what you're saying, senator. My immediate predecessor, Mr. Tootoo, had also received representations and had not proceeded with the full review of these quota sharings, but I'm committing here to talk to my officials to understand how and if that could be done. I'll be happy to work with you around it.
Senator Hubley: I've seen the breakdown of quota versus licences, and Prince Edward Island has 360 licences. It works out to 770 pounds per licence. That's a good-sized tuna. In one area of Nova Scotia, A sector, we're looking at 135 licences, or 722 pounds per licence — another good-sized tuna. But in Canso, there are 10 licences, so 1,760 pounds per fisher. In St. Margaret's Bay, for five licences, the quota works out to more than 20,000 pounds per licence.
Mr. LeBlanc: That's a few more tuna than P.E.I.
Senator Hubley: I'm pleased that the department understands the situation and that we may see some framework around the distribution quotas in the future.
Mr. LeBlanc: I have heard some of those exact numbers from some of the fishermen in my constituency who are near Murray Corner and Cape Tormentine, the bridge to your province. They have some of those exact same figures.
Kevin, do you want to add something specific?
Kevin Stringer, Associate Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: I guess the only thing we would add is that the shares were originally done for seven fleets. They were originally done in 2003. There are four around the gulf, one in Newfoundland and two in Nova Scotia.
It was originally done in 2003 with a commitment to do a review. It was reviewed and confirmed in 2006. They have been that way ever since. There's been a reduction in the quota over the last decade or so, until the last two years, and we saw the first increase in the last 15 years. So we've gone with a certain share on the way down, and as we're going back, that's when we're getting requests to look at it.
It has been a challenging issue. It's also a species, as you say, under great scrutiny in terms of conservation for various reasons, and at the international play this week.
[Translation]
Senator Poirier: I have three questions on three different subjects. The first question concerns the consultations for the next budget, which should be starting soon. According to an independent report, the Coast Guard fleet is virtually valueless or has depreciated significantly. Do you plan to ask the Minister of Finance to increase funding for the Coast Guard in the next budget?
Mr. LeBlanc: The answer is yes, but I'll be careful. Maybe the Commissioner has something to add. A week ago, an additional $1.5 billion was announced for the oceans protection plan. A large part or the majority of that amount will be targeted toward improving the Coast Guard's capacity.
As I said earlier, investments have also been made in keeping with the national shipbuilding strategy that was launched by the former government and that we fully support. We found that it was a good project. The marine construction plans include other Coast Guard ships.
I completely understand what you're saying. In recent years, the Coast Guard has suffered from a lack of operational funding. It has often been forced to use funding that should have been allocated to extend the life of certain ships or repair certain boats. Some Coast Guard assets had to be used for operational purposes as a result of a lack of funding. The budget was quite significantly reduced.
We'll try to make up for lost ground. I'm not saying the project will be included in the next budget, although both the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are aware of the Coast Guard's needs. That's why the Prime Minister himself wanted to announce the oceans protection plan in Vancouver on Monday. As a result, he had the opportunity to enjoy some time on the Sir Wilfrid Laurier ship.
Senator Poirier: As you know, we're currently conducting a study on the Coast Guard.
Another subject affects you more personally. As you know, Atlantic salmon is very important to the people back home, for tourism purposes and for our economy and identity. Can you share your short- and medium-term plans to increase the Atlantic salmon populations? Moreover, will you continue to catch and release fish, or will you implement other measures?
Mr. LeBlanc: As you clearly indicated, Senator Poirier, Atlantic salmon is extremely important not only in our province — back home, as you said — but around the world. It's a source of economic activity for our province and for other regions of Canada. A bit like aquaculture, it creates jobs and economic activity in certain regions that often don't have any other jobs or economic activity. I know there is pressure internationally regarding the Atlantic salmon.
With respect to the issue of allowing the retention of salmon caught in certain rivers, in this case, as you know, changes have been made in recent years to limit retention. Scientific studies have confirmed the need to better protect the species. I spoke this week with my senior staff to gain a better understanding of our projects for next year. We talked about it this afternoon before coming to your meeting. We'll continue to look at the file. Some people would like the changes to be reviewed. For the moment, I'm not ready to comment on the matter and to say that we could come up with different measures. However, I remain open to receiving scientific advice that will help me make further decisions.
Senator Poirier: You have been the minister responsible for the file for almost six months. In the past six months, have you been able to identify priorities or concerns that affect New Brunswick and that we should be aware of?
Mr. LeBlanc: That's a good question, Senator Poirier.
For the committee members who are unfamiliar with New Brunswick's geography — Senators Munson, Hubley and Stewart Olsen are familiar with it — Senator Poirier and I both live in Kent County, in the same constituency. Senator Poirier lives in the north part of the county, and I live in the south part. However, both of us can see the Northumberland Strait from our houses.
I'm very aware of the need to use the economic driver capacities of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Coast Guard for our province. However, pressure is coming from across the country. We must therefore make decisions based on scientific advice and on environmental protection and sustainable development principles.
That said, last week, the deputy minister and I had the chance to meet with Gulf Region employees, in Moncton, during the 35th anniversary of their building on University Avenue. We talked with the employees a bit about our ideas regarding the development of a concept for a science centre that would be more open to the public and that could be established in the region and on the West Coast. The idea is still in its early stages. However, if we can carry out the project, it could be quite a good opportunity for the people in our province.
I was pleased to support the decision of my predecessor, Mr. Tootoo, to increase the lobster size. The fishers back home had been requesting the size increase for a long time. I'm sure the Maritime Fishermen's Union and other stakeholders had been right all along. It's a way to support a responsible request on their part, not only for economic survival purposes, but also for conservation purposes.
I'll continue in this direction. If you have any ideas, my door is always open.
[English]
Senator Munson: Thank you, minister, for being here with your officials. I'll move to the West Coast, even though we're all talking about the East Coast. The Cohen Commission had a number of recommendations on restoring sockeye salmon, the Fraser River being one of the top priorities.
I need a point of clarification. In that recommendation from Justice Cohen, the Government of Canada should remove from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' mandate the promotion of salmon farming as an industry and farmed salmon as a product.
I have a simple question on that: Do you intend to implement this recommendation?
Mr. LeBlanc: Senator Munson, your question is germane, obviously. I had announced in British Columbia and Vancouver this summer the department's response to the different recommendations of Justice Cohen. I had the privilege of spending some time with Justice Cohen, entirely convinced that his work was rigorous and his commitment very clear. His analysis was very compelling, so I learned a lot from reading the report, but also from my conversations. I felt privileged to have a conversation with him about his report. A lot has been written, you're right, and a lot has been said about what some have interpreted — and it is not necessarily my view — as a contradiction or the difficulty of having a mandate to promote aquaculture.
I said it in British Columbia, and I've said it again, the department can properly regulate, as we are required to do after the B.C. Supreme Court decision. On the West Coast, Fisheries and Oceans is the regulator. As I said in my opening comments, we can also recognize the economic importance in terms of providing safe food to feed world populations through aquaculture. I don't see that, done properly, with the right legislative, regulatory and scientific oversight, there is something to see as necessarily contradictory.
In my conversations with Justice Cohen, promoting Canadian aquaculture, the Department of Agriculture and Agri-food and regional development agencies certainly on the East Coast — I'm not as familiar with what might be done on the West Coast — have promoted the aquaculture industry, both economically and in terms of trade.
I think our department can continue to tell the world the good-news story about Canadian aquaculture, but at the same time, as your report noted, be extremely vigilant and rigorous with scientific investments that were improved in the last budget, and it can be done in partnership with other organizations to reassure Canadians that the right framework exists and it can be done safely.
Senator Munson: Thank you for praising the work we did in our report. You listed a lot of impressive statistics. That's good, but there is a view that Canada is in the midst of a lost opportunity. If you take a look at where we went, in Scotland and Norway, and if you take a look at what the Chinese are doing with their farms and providing protein, as you said, to the rest of the world, we are so far behind in terms of our contribution to feeding the world, and I know they are good statements and honourable intentions.
Keeping that in mind, as you defend the aquaculture industry, with all this red tape, and you talked about provincial-federal jurisdictions, and possibly an aquaculture act, which maybe could come under agriculture, maybe not your department, but what is your vision? Do you have a vision yourself? Every government has a vision of some sort that comes into play, and how does that play out in the rest of the world? If you look at our statistics, you know, they're okay, and Canada's farmed fish is fine, safe and good for you, but we're nowhere near anybody else. We're way behind.
Mr. LeBlanc: You're absolutely right, senator. If you look at the sheer coastline we have, some of the best potential aquaculture sites in the world, and access to some of the best and most iconic wild fish and shellfish species in the world, I think we can and should be doing a lot more to showcase this remarkable Canadian success story to the world. My vision is opening up global markets to Canadian fish and seafood exporters, including aquaculture and farmed fish if it's done responsibly and sustainably.
All of these initiatives taken together can contribute to economic growth and middle class economic growth in parts of the country like your former north shore of New Brunswick and other parts of the country that, frankly, don't have multiple opportunities for well-paying jobs. That's why I found your report so compelling and the timing so appropriate. Done sustainably and with the appropriate regulatory and legislative oversight, all of that goes without saying, aquaculture can represent a major economic driver for the country, but it can also contribute to some of the global challenges around getting safe and healthy food to citizens of the world that are, frankly, in need of some of this protein.
This committee would probably have heard those witnesses and their testimony more precisely than I did, having read the report and thought about this issue, but we should be a more significant global player in this sector than we are. You talked about Norway, Scotland and other countries with smaller coastlines and perhaps less maritime tradition in some areas than Canada might have.
We have an opportunity here. Indigenous groups in British Columbia have talked to me about their desire to participate in sustainable aquaculture. Imagine if we can have a partnership with indigenous communities along the coast of British Columbia or in the North. I have visited some of the installations in my province of New Brunswick and in Prince Edward Island this summer with my provincial counterpart, Minister McIsaac. There are huge opportunities here. Collectively, as a country, we can offer economic opportunity to Canadians and a safe, reliable food supply to the world.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I have two questions for you. One concerns the Inner Bay of Fundy Atlantic Salmon Fort Folly Habitat Recovery program that they're doing. Can you update me on what's happening there? They are tracking the spawning process of fish they released in the Petitcodiac tributaries. I'm wondering if you have an update about successes. The Atlantic salmon there was almost extinct.
Mr. LeBlanc: You're absolutely right. I had the chance with some of the leadership at Fort Folly, not in recent months but in the last year or two, to understand and appreciate the project that they were working on rather impressively and with a great deal of passion and commitment.
I don't have with me even preliminary results of that study, but I'd be more than happy to get the precise answer for you because it's probably a question that I should know the answer to. You generously didn't point out that it's also in my constituency. It is important, so I will undertake to find the specific results of that.
With respect to the Petitcodiac River more generally, we have an opportunity to do some significant restorative work. I have said as a member of Parliament, and I have repeated it since I became a minister, that I think we should restore the full tidal flow of the Petitcodiac River. That means removing that causeway and putting in a span bridge. With some of the significant infrastructure funding that, in fairness, the previous government had not committed and new funding that our government has identified, I am very hopeful. The province shares that priority that the final piece of restoring that iconic river in our part of the country can be done and can be done in the coming months.
I don't want to scoop my own announcement, but I'll make you a deal: When we get to the time where we're close to that announcement, it would be a privilege if you would join me there, because I believe and hope that we're close to finalizing what that would look like.
Senator Stewart Olsen: That's great to hear, minister. Thank you.
My second question is about the eel fishery. That's a very important little fishery down where I am in southeastern New Brunswick. It's been noticed in Ontario and Quebec that eels are really diminishing, but in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, it's okay. They have like a bumper crop. But they are worried that whatever's happening in those other provinces may indeed impact them there. Do you have any idea what's going on or why the eels are diminishing in the other provinces?
Mr. LeBlanc: I'll offer a few opening comments, and I think Kevin Stringer could perhaps provide you with some more details. If we don't have that information, again, I would be more than happy to ensure that we get it to you.
I've also visited Mitch's eel business in Port Elgin. To see 10,000 eels in some huge tank — it's like this black water. In fact, Mr. Chrétien, when he was a candidate in a by-election in my riding in 1990 — I was a law student — I visited the beginning of what is now a global operation that Mitch has put together. So I'm conscious of the importance of that species.
Your colleague Senator Moore has done very good and long-standing work around the Hamilton Declaration. I am hoping to formally have the instruments I need to attach Canada to that declaration in the coming weeks — even before Christmas would be my hope. It's a way to honour his work before he retires next year, and that's part of the answer.
And you're right: I've heard the same thing in our part of New Brunswick. With respect to the provincial differences, maybe Kevin can add something.
Mr. Stringer: I'll just add a couple of points. The eel fishery is enormously complex. As far as science understands, all eels start in the Sargasso Sea near Bermuda, so all of the eels that end up in Quebec, Ontario, et cetera, all start in the same area.
COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, the independent group that provides advice to ministers about what should be listed under the Species at Risk Act, has recommended this to be listed, I believe, as "special concern.''
The challenge is that those eels end up well up the St. Lawrence in the Great Lakes area, and there are a number of issues that have been identified as threats. The main thing is fish passage — barriers and dams. The second thing is hydroelectric facilities and turbines that eat them up. A third is habitat degradation. There are a number of specific things that have been identified.
We've pulled together those who are responsible for it: Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime provinces, New York state, I think Vermont, the power companies, et cetera. There's been an enormous effort to be able to address this, because they are really at risk in some areas and they are doing quite well in other areas. The challenge is to ensure that enough get back so that the generations keep going.
People are working on it, and we're well aware of the challenges in that part of New Brunswick, bordered with Maine, where we also deal with the Maine government in terms of trying to make sure that fishery stays open.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you, and if you have any updates, I'd appreciate you letting me know.
Mr. LeBlanc: I'll undertake to make sure that the specific question with respect to what appears anecdotal but I've heard the same things you have around provincial returns — I don't know if "returns'' is the right word for eels — but that some provinces would appear to be in better shape than others, but it's the same eels that started.
Senator Stewart Olsen: That's the worry.
Mr. LeBlanc: I'm worried they don't want to visit our province as much as they would in Nova Scotia. That should concern us. The deputy minister is from Nova Scotia.
Senator Raine: It's very nice to have you here again. You know we're doing a study on SAR, and I want to talk a little bit about the situation in B.C.
When we started doing this study, I took the liberty of calling one of the officials in British Columbia to ask how things were going. He reassured me that the system was working very well. When I asked about the closing of the Comox communications centre, which had been getting some pushback, he explained that they have been upgrading the Victoria MCTS base with more sophisticated equipment and technology, which he described as "state of the art.'' He indicated that there will be no change in service levels when the Comox centre is closed next year, and the Victoria centre has the capacity to monitor the full system of radio transmission.
When we had the incident at Bella Bella with the tugboat, it reminded me that I really only talked to one person and I should do a little more checking. So I started talking to people we had met when we last did the study on de-staffing the lighthouses in British Columbia. The stories I got from them were so completely different. There were all kinds of reports of dropped calls, radio transmissions not being heard — all kinds of problems — and that it was not nearly as good as it used to be and lives were at stake. So my radar went up.
I remember that when we did the lighthouse study, we talked about using the light-keepers to their fullest extent. They're there, and they have an opportunity to take scientific samples of the water and all kinds of things like that. They told me that they have taken away the station boats — all the boats except two out of 27 lighthouses. They took them away for a tune-up and didn't bring them back. I can just imagine what those people, who are absolutely the salt of the earth, would feel like not being able to go out and rescue somebody because they don't have a boat.
I really think that we need to take a good, hard look at what the roles of the lighthouse and the lighthouse keepers are in our system of SARs, and also our system of monitoring and being the network for the marine and aviation highway. You have all been to British Columbia. You know what it's like. You have huge mountains rising right out of the ocean, and if you don't have good communication and you are going through inlets and channels, it's just a matter of time before a tugboat pushing a barge goes on to a rock, and then you have these environmental disasters.
Number one, why can't we have the boats at the lighthouses? Number two, have we thought about storing environmental equipment on the light station? There was a light station, I think, two kilometres away from the tugboat that was in trouble off Bella Bella, and it could have made all the difference in the world. These things are very important, but the one that scares me the most is radio coverage after someone shared with me some of the logs of the radio operators showing the calls that they couldn't hear and chatter on the line.
My final thing was that all the people who talked to me said, "You can't tell anybody about this because we are gagged.''
My question is this: Is there an official gag on front-line staff working in the MCTS stations and on the light stations for us, a Senate committee looking into this situation? We need to talk to people who are there with the boots on the ground. It's all well and good to have one thing as an operation and as a system, but we need to really understand what is happening. Is it working?
Mr. LeBlanc: Senator, I'll take a crack. Thank you for the question, because I absolutely share your concern around the maximum capacity that Canada needs to respond on all coasts. On the west coast, your province represents a significant challenge geographically, and I totally understand your view.
I will take a shot. Mr. Chair, we have votes in 15 minutes on a bunch of budget measures, so you will excuse me at one point.
Senator, the brief answer to your question is that nobody has been muzzled. They may have been muzzled before, I don't know, but I certainly wouldn't and the Coast Guard commissioner would not purport to discourage front-line staff who have something to say, especially to a committee of Parliamentarians, a Senate committee. You should feel free to ask them and they should feel free to talk to you. They said you couldn't tell anybody, but you just did in a televised committee hearing, so that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing.
Specifically, with respect to the west coast, I will ask the commissioner to address the issue around the lighthouses and the boats. The announcement the Prime Minister made last week about oceans protection in British Columbia alone will add six new radar stations. There will be a significant increase in the hydrography work and ocean mapping to provide safe and accessible nautical charts for mariners. That's a key part of safety. There will be four new lifeboat stations along the coast. We will invest in a significant towing capacity.
One of the concerns at Haida Gwaii a number of years ago when that Russia vessel had lost command and power was that it was, potentially, a couple of hours away from drifting up on the shore, which would have been a huge environmental disaster. We will add a dedicated towing vessel capacity, and we will outfit 20 heavy Canadian Coast Guard vessels with towing kits that will allow them to respond in the case of a larger incident like that one off Haida Gwaii some years ago.
We are investing significantly in a capacity to allow, as I mentioned in my introductory comments, indigenous communities in particular, setting up an indigenous Coast Guard auxiliary. Bella Bella, where I was two weeks ago, would be a perfect example of a community. The Heiltsuk Nation wants, should and must be involved in the planning and response. They have the traditional indigenous knowledge and the capacity, and God knows I saw they have the passion to be the first responders and to do what they can in the event of an unacceptable circumstance like what happened to them.
The best thing is to prevent one of those nightmare scenarios from happening, but in the event one happens, we need to up our game, and we think that those communities would have access. We are going to equip them, give them vessels, training and radios, and ensure that we have this expanded environmental and search and rescue response. They would be trained and ready to respond, obviously, in both circumstances.
But with respect to the lighthouse issue and the importance of radio coverage, I completely agree that an element of safety is to have the appropriate radio and communications coverage. Maybe the commissioner has some specific details.
Jody Thomas, Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard: If I could speak first to the gagging of employees, that's absolutely not done. The only thing I do ask is that employees let us know if there is a dropped call or a bad transmission so that I'm hearing it from them, rather than here. That would be the case with the boats. No one has raised that with me, so I will have to go back and look into it. It has not happened in my 10 years as commissioner, so if there is a problem of boats being removed from light stations and not being put back, it predates me. I will have to find out why that's occurred, and I commit to doing that for you.
In terms of the transmissions and MCTS, I have been in both the Prince Rupert and Victoria stations in the last six weeks. I have talked to the operators and people in the community and heard the radio transmissions in Bella Bella, as an example, and I'm confident that system is working very well. There were always areas, previously, where there were some dead zones, which is why we are putting in the new radars and a completely redundant MCTS backup system so that if a site goes down, there is a redundant system. That's in the Oceans Protections Plan.
The operators in Prince Rupert and Victoria tell me they are now getting comfortable with the system and it is working extremely well. They've had a few moments where a station has gone down because of a relay on a mountain top, but that's going to happen. That's the problem with British Columbia. You have radio antennas on the top of a mountain, and a storm will take it out. The redundant system is going to help fix that. We will have a backup for the entire system.
In terms of environmental response equipment, part of the Oceans Protection Plan is an expansion or refurbishment of our environmental response equipment, like booms, skimmers and absorbent pads. Our existing facilities up and down the coast are going to be part of where we consider placing those. They have to be placed strategically where people are trained to use them: First Nations, other communities and other Coast Guard locations.
Senator Raine: And light stations, as well.
Ms. Thomas: They could well be. I am not committing to that, but we're going to do that study.
Senator Raine: Where it makes sense.
Mr. LeBlanc: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to miss the vote. We don't want to have an election now, and it is on a budget.
The Chair: I want to thank you for taking the time for being here, and we certainly look forward to having you back again. There has been a great conversation here. I would ask that your colleagues stay for a little while longer just because we will have a couple of follow-up questions from our senators.
Mr. LeBlanc: Sure, they are happy to stay. If at another time, at your committee's convenience, you want me to come back because some colleagues didn't have a chance to ask questions, and some are senators that I haven't had the privilege of working with or getting to know, I would thank you for the opportunity. Please excuse me, but I do want to be at the vote.
The Chair: Senator Raine, do you have a follow-up question to the commissioner?
Senator Raine: Yes, I did have a follow-up.
We all know there are dead zones on the B.C. coast. My questions are: Where are they? Are they on a map? Do people unfamiliar with the terrain, like recreational users, know where the dead zones are? Do they know what they should do when they are in a dead zone? My understanding is that the mariners and fishermen out there on a regular basis know where the dead zones are and they don't call mayday. They call somewhere else, because they know.
We should have a really good map of all of these zones because when I looked at the log of the list of calls missed at Victoria MCTS for May 10 up until October, in reading through it, I found that it was a lot more than I would have envisioned. It wasn't just the odd one. I can leave you this list if you like. However, I was surprised and frankly very concerned because it wasn't just one person bringing this to my attention but quite a few.
Ms. Thomas: I would very much like to see it; I haven't, and there has been no report to me or to my team from the centre — as I said, I was just there six weeks ago — of any significant concern about missed calls. I'd like to see it, and I'll go back to them and ask them. Thank you.
We know where the dead zones are, absolutely, and certainly local fishers do. It's not something we would necessarily publish, but we know in the Oceans Protection Plan where we need to put in the new towers and the new radar to assist with that problem. That's part of the work that we're going to be doing over the course of the next 18 months.
Senator Enverga: Thank you for being here today.
Actually, this was supposed to be for the minister, however, I know both of you will be able to answer this. We have learned via media reports that Coast Guard personnel have not been immune from the Phoenix payroll debacle. There are reports that this affects the Coast Guard's ability to have sufficient crews on vessels. Can the deputy minister or the commissioner update us on the status of this? Is it affecting the crewing of ships? Is it affecting the morale of the crews on the ships? Do you have an update on this?
Catherine Blewett, Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Thank you very much for the question. I can say very emphatically that it absolutely is impacting the morale of people on ships and, frankly, public servants across the country. It's something that's a real challenge.
Our commissioner has been working extremely diligently with the Coast Guard members. One of the anomalies that actually does impact Coast Guard staff is that their schedules are different. They are not on a nine-to-five schedule. They start at noon or their shifts are different and they have different leave provisions. Their schedule is a little different from most public servants. As I understand, some of the challenges Phoenix has had are with abnormal cycles like that. We have experienced that, and both Jody and I have been across the country and have had town hall meetings with our staff to hear their stories first-hand and to hear the circumstances that they're facing.
Without doubt, it's real. We are trying to do what we can as a department to make sure that they are not without emergency pay and that their families aren't put into real jeopardy, so we're working quite hard, but it's a circumstance that continues to go on and we are working enterprise-wide to see what we can do.
We do take our Coast Guard cases and we are working with my deputy minister colleague at Public Works who is trying to come to a solution, again, to see what we can do. but it's absolutely having an effect.
Ms. Thomas: To echo the deputy, yes, absolutely morale is affected. What is remarkable about the employees at the Canadian Coast Guard is they're coming to work. Crewing isn't affected. Ships are going to sea. We have not been impacted by Phoenix because of the dedication of the people who serve in the Canadian Coast Guard, which is extraordinary. I had a conversation last weekend with a young man we owe $60,000 to, and he finally said, "I need some help.'' We are working systemically with Public Services and Procurement Canada, within our own systems to get people paid and then on a case-by-case basis with people, but we haven't had crews not showing up for work because of it.
Senator Enverga: Are you going to any manual processes to mitigate the hardship of the crews?
Ms. Thomas: Our process is actually quite manual. We have to do manual uploads into Phoenix because, as the deputy explained, our work schedules are quite different. We work a 42-hour week, not a 37.5-hour week, and our workday starts noon to noon. People go to sea for two, four or six weeks, and all of their pay gets uploaded to the system at the same time. It's a very complex process for them.
We are doing manual interventions to correct problems in the system when they crop up as we can. We can't do it for all 3,500 sea-going employees or all 4,500 employees in the Coast Guard. We have manual interventions when we hear of a hardship case, and the deputy minister has authorized the human resources department and the chief financial officer to cut cheques for people who need money.
Senator Enverga: On a different note, this question is with regard to the Asian carp in the Great Lakes. People are concerned that this invasive species is decimating the habitat and the native fish in the Great Lakes. Is the minister doing anything to stop this invasive species from growing and proliferating in the Great Lakes?
Ms. Blewett: Thank you for the question. I have to assure you it is a topic that consumes a lot of time in our department, and it's an area that we work on a lot with our partners in provinces.
My colleague, Kevin Stringer, has a lot of detail, but there are multiple avenues of work going on in invasive species, and the species are different across the country. Kevin can give more detail on Asian carp.
Mr. Stringer: We have an Asian carp program of $17.5 million over five years, which actually sunsets this coming March, so you have to think about what to continue with. It has a number of elements. It has an education piece, a prevention piece, an early warning piece and a removal and management piece, which we have had to address because we have seen more show up in not the Great Lakes necessarily but the Great Lakes drainage zone. They are mostly on the U.S. side, but some on the Canadian.
We saw some in Toronto. The expectation is that they were fully grown, which means they were likely released there. There are different ways to get into the Great Lakes system. We are concerned about how many it would take to actually establish themselves. We've got some science work that says it would take I think it was five or ten males and females in the same area. If they got through into the system, they could establish themselves.
We've actually been able to fish out what we've heard about. We've done the assessments of where they came from, whether they're triploid or diploid, which means if they're sterile, because a number of these things have been bred for aquaculture purposes. We do believe we're on top of it, but we need to be ever vigilant about it, and they do seem to be turning up more than they have in the past.
Senator Enverga: How bad is it right now in the Great Lakes?
Mr. Stringer: I asked one of the experts recently, "Do you believe they're established?'' and the answer was "No, we don't believe they're established.'' We believe that the risk continues.
There are different ways for them to get in. One is through the live food trade. It's illegal to bring them into Canada, but people do, so you can get them through the live food trade. Two, there is what is actually the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. and there are 110 metres of electrified water that zaps them and they go back. The challenge is if one gets into a vessel, goes across on the vessel and gets out.
We are on top of it, and on the U.S. side there were some aquaculture facilities that actually apply these things so we see them more than the U.S. side. We're concerned in particular in Lake Erie. In Lake Erie, we've identified that the habitat there is quite hospitable to them, and we have seen some show up but we haven't seen them so we believe that they're established.
We're vigilant now and will continue to be vigilant. We're working with the Province of Ontario, but also with New York State and Michigan and others in terms of making sure that we're detecting them, we're removing them when we can and that we're going to manage them if they do get established, but they're not established in our view at this point.
Senator Eaton: May I ask a question on Atlantic salmon, or is that off the table this evening?
The Chair: Nothing is off the table.
Senator Eaton: What leverage, Ms. Blewett, do we have with Greenland? Last year they took 54,000 tonnes of Atlantic salmon when they had agreed to take only 45,000. When you think they used to sustainably fish and now they're up to 54,000, what can we do to make them see how endangered the Atlantic salmon is?
Ms. Blewett: Thank you for the question. Your question reminds me very much of a question that the minister asked me. It was exactly that: what can we do? Kevin is also sort of our expert on that. The minister and I started about six months ago, exactly at the same time, and it was an early question of his.
Mr. Stringer: There are a number of things that we are doing, and we probably do need to do more. The numbers have been going down in recent years. They spiked at one point about four years ago when they established what they call, I think, a factory fishery. For a number of years, it was relatively low, in the 20 range, and then it spiked to 57 of reported catches, and now it's down around 45.
Senator Eaton: I understand differently from the research we had been doing. We did an inquiry in the Senate on the salmon. We hoped to get it down to 45 but had not yet got there. Are you telling me it has now?
Mr. Stringer: I think it was at 57, and it's now — and we'll confirm this — I think down to 45. We have got Greenland to agree on a system for reporting, for monitoring and for management, and all those things were not really in place. They've done that. Two years ago I think was the first year. This past year was much better in terms of implementing that. They are taking steps to address it. At the end of day, they have the authority to be able to establish it.
We have something called NASCO, North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization, which includes us, the U.S., Greenland and Norway, Scotland, Ireland and others who care about salmon, and it's through that organization that we've been able to collectively engage Greenland and talk about the challenges that they have, and they have taken some measures.
Senator Eaton: Isn't Greenland part of Denmark?
Mr. Stringer: Yes.
Senator Eaton: Wasn't Denmark one of the players against killing seals, against the seal hunt?
Mr. Stringer: Greenland was someone that we worked with. Denmark was difficult to read. Norway was working with Canada. Denmark, I can't recall exactly, but I don't know if they were — they certainly were not a specific ally with us on it.
Senator Eaton: What I'm saying, I guess, is could we not start to make connections between the salmon they are taking but they are against our seal hunt?
Mr. Stringer: There are hugely important broader relationships with Greenland, including Denmark. We share a northern shrimp stock, and the shrimp are on both sides. We share a turbot stock, and we have fifty-fifty in terms of the sharing arrangement there. We have a seal stock that move back and forth that we both try to manage, and we have salmon, and there are other pieces as well. Greenland is also an important partner that we need in NAFO in addressing foreign overfishing and those types of things off the Northwest Atlantic.
That said, they understand and we've made it clear that we need to do more in terms of making sure of the priority around salmon and to address salmon. We do have them, we think, moving in the right direction, but we do need to do more with them.
Senator Eaton: Just one small question on the area still of Atlantic salmon: I didn't salmon fish last summer, for all kinds of reasons, so I'm not up to it, but have the standards for killing salmon been standardized across all the provinces? In other words, last time I fished, some provinces had catch and release. I fish in Newfoundland sometimes where they de-barb hooks. In other provinces, they do not de-barb hooks. Have we thought of standardizing or encouraging the provinces to have the same rules everywhere?
Mr. Stringer: It's our standards; it is the federal government that establishes those. We work closely with the provinces on it. It depends on the state of the science and the state of the stock. You will have different management measures based on how the stock is doing.
In our Maritimes region, which is coastal Nova Scotia with the exception of a couple of areas, virtually all are closed. In New Brunswick, in P.E.I. and in the gulf area generally, last year for the second year in a row we went with no catch and release. Some areas remained opened but we had barbless hooks —
Senator Eaton: How about de-barbed hooked?
Mr. Stringer: In some cases we do that. Again, it depends on the state of the stock, and we establish the state of the stock based on a number of things. One is we have counting fences in certain areas so we know — not enough but we have them in some areas on some rivers. In other areas, we are able to measure or assess the number of eggs per square metre, and if the number of eggs per square metre goes below a certain level, we will take further measures. We also do those measures in concert with the industry.
Senator Eaton: With the camps along the river?
Mr. Stringer: That's correct.
Senator Eaton: How many fish have come up, how many fish have been hooked.
Mr. Stringer: And to be able to say, okay, folks, we are going to take further measures. We're either going to move to barbless hooks, which says we need further measures in there. Sometimes you will some difference based on working with the local industry, but the measures overall are consistent with our understanding of the state of the stocks.
The Chair: Senator Sinclair, did you still want to ask a question even though the minister has left?
Senator Sinclair: Oh, sure. I'm never at a loss to ask questions.
I have a couple of questions concerning the indigenous fishery on the West Coast. Some have contacted me and complained about the conflict, if I can call it that, although I'm not sure if that's the right word, or the disparity they feel that exists because of the sport fishery on the West Coast and the impact it is having on their Aboriginal fishery. Are you aware of this disagreement, this conflict, and what are you doing about it?
Ms. Blewett: Thank you very much for the question, senator. We're absolutely aware of the ongoing dialogue on the West Coast and the East Coast with respect to indigenous fisheries.
I can step back a little bit just to put in context a bit of that conflict, which I think predates me by about 100 years. Conservation is the first premise that we have, so in terms of any allocation, conserving stock is the first part, and then indigenous fisheries — food, social and ceremonial allocations — recreational and commercial fisheries. So that's how they are divided up, and there is always a rub.
I've been learning a lot, and timing always comes into play. Gear type, depending on the species, is sometimes incredibly controversial, and frankly, in the context of the indigenous fisheries, when I think about the West Coast, there are several First Nations all across, for example, going up a river, so there are always conflicts around allocations.
The person who is not here who really deserves some ongoing support is our regional director general out in the Pacific region. Daily, our office interacts and our offices up on the B.C. coast interact with sports fishermen, with indigenous fishers and with commercial fishers. All the fisheries start and close at different times of the year. Almost every one of them has an exquisite conflict of one sort or another. I'm not trying to be facetious at all. It's difficult, particularly as we're finding that the stocks are not as predictable, necessarily, with all species as they once were. That's really creating more of a rub and more of a challenge for us, because they're not coming back at the same time and not necessarily at the same level.
So what are we doing about it? We have to operate on the precautionary principle. I'm thinking West Coast, so I'm primarily talking about a lot of the salmon stocks. We look at what is coming back. Unfortunately, we have to close various fisheries — and I don't think I'm exaggerating — but it's almost daily. Every weekend, we have to work and calibrate what a First Nation's catch will be, what a rec catch will be and, if any, commercial residual catches.
Yes, we're aware of it. It is an ongoing challenge. We try to make sure our science is robust, and we make sure we keep the dialogue open. It's not easy. It gets quite heated sometimes. All we can continue to do is keep talking and sharing the basis of our decision-making, which we try to root in science. Does that help?
Senator Sinclair: As long as we understand what I think the law says, and the law says it's not a balancing test between the sports fishery and the indigenous fishery.
Ms. Blewett: You're right.
Senator Sinclair: The indigenous fishery only has to be balanced as against conservation.
Ms. Blewett: Right.
Senator Sinclair: If there's a need to give priority to either fishers who are in the sport fishing industry or those who are in the indigenous fishing industry, I assume the department understands that the indigenous fishery always wins out.
Ms. Blewett: Yes, we understand that, absolutely. One of the challenges is that you will hear — often anecdotes — that if folks are not happy with an allocation, it will be playing one off against another. That's very challenging, but we are crystal clear on the law.
Senator Sinclair: Okay.
I had a question about the aquaculture report that was completed by the committee of the Senate some time ago, in particular the minister's comment earlier about partnerships being formulated with indigenous groups, including First Nations, around the aquaculture industry. Does the department have a position with regard to the question of whether the right of the indigenous people of the West Coast, in particular, since we're talking about the West Coast, to a small commercial fishery operation in accordance with various case laws that have occurred also extends to the right to participate in and establish aquaculture operations?
Ms. Blewett: It's something that we are very actively focused on. You may have been following our discussions throughout our day today.
Go ahead, Kevin.
Senator Sinclair: I have spies.
Ms. Blewett: Evidently.
Mr. Stringer: The question is a little bit around whether a commercial fishery right extends to an aquaculture right; is that basically it?
Senator Sinclair: It's probably more refined than that. It's whether the indigenous fishery right extends to the aquaculture industry.
Mr. Stringer: So the food, social and ceremonial right as established in Sparrow is quite broad but specific. It relates to practices that go back in time. The commercial right that's established in a number of other decisions, such as Gladstone and Van der Peet, establish a test, and we would have to apply those tests.
What I think has happened is that some First Nations have actually looked to aquaculture — some but not many — to say, "In terms of us meeting our food, social and ceremonial right, we have a food, social and ceremonial right, we believe, and we're going to use aquaculture to fill that.'' There are many others who say they don't want to do that, but they can address it.
But the food, social and ceremonial rights, as with all other Aboriginal rights, are group- and site-specific, and there's a specific test we would have to apply under Sparrow for FSC and under other decisions for commercial access.
Senator Sinclair: That gets you partway to answering my question. I assume it's because you're partway in your thinking, so we'll need to have a further discussion around this if you come back at another time. Thank you for that as a start.
The Chair: I want to thank our witnesses this evening for their time and answers to our questions. It's been a great discussion, and we look forward to maybe having you all back again sometime in the near future on some of the other issues that may have come up this evening.
We will go in camera to discuss our proposed visit to Newfoundland and Labrador and a few other issues.
(The committee continued in camera.)