---

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on 
Fisheries and Oceans

Issue 3 - Evidence

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, April 2, 2009

The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 10:31 a.m. to study on issues relating to the federal government's new and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans.

Senator Bill Rompkey (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: Welcome, everyone. We particularly want to welcome the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is the first opportunity that we have had to meet with you. Not only that, but it is the first opportunity you have had to meet with us. We are doubly blessed. You have, I understand, about an hour to spend with us, and we are grateful for that. You have some officials with you, minister, and you can introduce them as you see fit.

We have been conducting some specific studies, as you probably know. We have been focusing on the Arctic in particular, and fisheries in the Arctic, and we have been focusing on the role of the Coast Guard, which brings us into security and so on.

We are in the process of finalizing a report that we will have out shortly. Today, we want to explore both fisheries in the Arctic, the question of quotas, infrastructure and so on, and also the role of the Coast Guard in the past and how it might be changed in the future, including infrastructure, boats, equipment and staffing. I hope all of this will come up during the discussions, but there are many people here, minister, who will have other questions they will want to ask. As we do not meet with you every day, I will allow some latitude and allow people to ask questions on topics other than Nunavut fisheries and the Coast Guard.

The Hon. Gail A. Shea, P.C., M.P., Minister of Fisheries and Oceans: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and senators. I want to thank you for inviting me here today. I will take this opportunity to introduce some of my departmental officials with me. My deputy is Claire Dansereau. We have the Commissioner of the Coast Guard, George Da Pont. I have the Assistant Deputy Minister of Policy, Michaela Huard; Director General of Resource Management, Barry Rashotte; and the Director General of Habitat Management, Ian Matheson.

I am delighted and honoured to be here as Canada's Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I will talk to you this morning about the current economic situation, its impact on Canadian fisheries, and my plans and priorities.

As many of you are aware, I am the first Fisheries Minister from Prince Edward Island in fifty years. Coming from a fishing family and community, I can truly appreciate the importance of the fisheries to so many families who live on our shores right across the country. I have seen first-hand how the fisheries are not only the economic mainstay of many coastal communities but also a vital contributor to the economic prosperity of this country.

As many of you well know, our country's commercial and recreational fisheries and aquatic sectors generate $12 billion a year for our economy. Our seafood exports bring in more money than our wheat, beef and pork, which is why the global recession and the current state of Canadian fisheries is of concern to all of us.

There is no doubt that the global economic downturn has affected every sector of Canada's economy. The fishing industry is no exception. While this country remains in relatively good shape economically, the decline in world demand for Canadian goods and services may continue for some time. The truth for seafood markets across the nation is that this coming spring and summer will be difficult.

There are other challenges. Fishing enterprises, from the inshore owner-operator to the large integrated firms, are facing a credit crunch from institutional lenders. Organizations that work with us in restoring habitat and enhancing fish stocks are finding it more difficult to raise funds in these times.

To help soften the blow of the economic downturn as much as possible, our government has invested in key areas that will have the most direct economic benefit for Canadians. Budget 2009, the Economic Action Plan, will have spinoff benefits for years to come; including for those communities whose future depends on the prosperity of Canada's fisheries and marine sectors.

Working with regional development agencies such as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, my colleagues and I will be able to invest in initiatives that will help our fishing industry weather the storm and adjust to new market demands.

Let us also consider investments from my department, Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Some $200 million will go towards the construction and repairs of small craft harbours across the nation to ensure safe, accessible and sound harbour facilities for the commercial fishing and aquaculture industries, and the communities that they support.

An additional $175 million is being invested in the Canadian Coast Guard to buy new ships and repair aging vessels. This new funding will improve the Coast Guard's ability to patrol our waters, enforce our laws and to rescue ships in distress. It will also help scientists conduct crucial research on the health of our oceans and the fish that live in them, precisely the kind of data we need to develop effective quotas and management plans and for broader ecosystem knowledge.

In the months ahead, my department will begin rolling out projects outlined in our Economic Action Plan, while carefully balancing three key priorities: sustainability, economic prosperity, and consultation.

In these times of global economic uncertainty, building fisheries that are both sustainable and economically prosperous will be at the top of my department's agenda. After all, economic prosperity cannot be achieved without sustained and sustainable resources.

My department will support these goals by working with harvesters to renew our policies, policies that allow them greater flexibility in managing their own enterprises. We will improve our regulatory framework. We will work with financial institutions to provide greater certainty, and we will continue to work on the stability, predictability and transparency of fisheries management.

To improve fisheries management and to protect the public resource, DFO developed a sustainable fisheries framework, which includes new policies and tools to support sustainable fisheries. At the heart of the framework is the application of an ecosystem approach for fisheries. DFO will further increase its consideration of the effects of the fishery on various components of the ecosystem when managing wild capture fisheries in Canada.

These various parts of the ecosystem include the targeted fish stock; other fish species caught incidentally, including species that might be at risk; food sources for other species; fish habitat; and sensitive or unique bottom habitats and ecosystems such as seamounts, corals or sponges.

Our framework will also help us to make precautionary decisions that will conserve fisheries resources. It will also help us improve the way we think about and address the impact of fishing on the various parts of the ecosystem.

My department will be better able to manage ecosystem impacts and impose measures that conserve our fish stocks. We will continue to make informed decisions based on scientific research and peer-reviewed advice. We will plan ahead with stakeholders.

We will continue to increase enforcement. Fishery and habitat officers are already working hard to monitor and enforce compliance with our rules. In fact, Canada has one of the most advanced monitoring, control and surveillance programs in the world. We will continue to use our conservation and protection resources wisely, while encouraging our harvesters to be better managers of our own public fish resources.

The concept of self-rationalization, that is voluntarily adjusting one's harvesting capacity, will be encouraged. Being able to adjust the amount being caught and to respond to resource and market fluctuations will lead to more sustainable and prosperous fisheries. This is especially relevant when we think about the upcoming spring lobster fishery.

These are only some of the steps we will be talking to ensure the sustainability of the resource. The key is to find the balance that serves the needs of Canadians while managing ecosystem impacts. The latter is extremely important because environmental issues, particularly sustainability, are having a major impact on markets around the world. These days, certification and traceability are key elements to ensuring access to foreign markets. Canada needs to be equipped to meet those market demands.

Recently, the Atlantic Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers, ACFAM, met to discuss these challenges. We had a successful meeting that resulted in a commitment to combine our research and strategic marketing efforts. We agreed to continue working with participants all along the seafood value chain to improve traceability and certification of Canadian fish and seafood products. That way, we will ensure that Canada continues to respond to market requirements. The ACFAM meeting also resulted in a renewed commitment to help sustainable aquaculture production grow.

The government will maintain its commitment to helping Canada's aquaculture industry reach its fullest potential. We will forge ahead with our sustainable aquaculture development program. This program involves improving our regulatory process through greater coordination between various levels of government.

My department will continue to work with other levels of government and industry to demonstrate the sustainability of Canada's fish and seafood products and increase market access. As well, we will continue working with the provinces and territories. I am confident that these types of partnerships will help broaden Canadian access to domestic and foreign markets. For example, as you may know, over 80 per cent of Atlantic lobster is sold to the U.S. Americans simply are not buying lobster the way they used to.

To create more market opportunities and greater returns for lobster fishermen, our government invested more than $325,000 in the Canadian Agriculture and Food International Program, which is a special initiative to promote lobster abroad. The governments of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick contributed an additional $126,000 to this initiative.

Funding will be used to support global marketing efforts led by the Fisheries Council of Canada. This is an excellent example of what can be achieved when we work with provincial and territorial partners.

Maintaining Canada's leadership presence at the international level is also extremely important. To this end, we will continue to actively participate in negotiations in multinational, binational and regional arenas to ensure sustainability is an international priority and advance Canada's agenda in this regard.

We will continue to support industry in their participation at international trade shows to promote our world-class fish and seafood products, as well as our sustainable fisheries and aquaculture management practices. I am pleased to report that Canadian industry representatives had a successful showing in March at the International Boston Seafood Show.

Reform of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization has been an important aspect of Canada's ongoing efforts to improve fisheries management on the high seas over the long term. We remain committed to our ongoing efforts to strengthen NAFO through Canadian ratification of its updated convention. We will seek to strengthen management decisions of other regional fisheries management organizations in which Canada takes part.

We will also continue working in cooperation with the United States, the European Union and other nations in an effort to combat illegal fishing and other unsustainable fishing practices. Joint enforcement makes our inspection practices even stronger and will help put an end to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing once and for all.

My department is also very involved in the North. From icebreaking to developing Canada's northern fisheries, my department continues to support our government's security and sovereignty objectives under the Northern Strategy. Budget 2009 invests an additional $17 million to help accelerate the construction of a small craft harbour in Pangnirtung. This critical harbour infrastructure will support Nunavut's growing commercial fisheries as well as fisheries science. It will also mean jobs in a region that is seeking opportunities for further economic development.

I understand you are interested in a trip to the western Arctic. My officials would be pleased to help facilitate in whatever way they can.

Regarding the Canadian seal hunt, I have to tell you we will not waiver in our support for this industry and the families who depend on it. My officials and honourable members have made numerous attempts to set the facts straight about the hunt. Unfortunately, this evidence is not yet understood or is drowned out by the emotional fundraising rhetoric in Europe. We hope the end result will be a positive one for Canada. Until then, we will continue to defend the rights of Canadian sealers to earn their livelihood in a humane, sustainable and lawful way.

Our government remains steadfast in its commitment to defend the legitimate economic activities of Canadians. We will continue to take action to maintain market access for Canadian seal products. We hope to have the unanimous support of honourable senators as well.

This morning I have covered some of the key domestic and international issues that are the most important for my department and for many Canadians, particularly during these tough economic times.

To bolster the economic viability of Canada's fisheries and marine sector, decisions will be made with sustainability and consultation in mind. Collaboration is essential. DFO will continue to work with the provinces, the territories, Aboriginal peoples, industry and all of our stakeholders. I truly believe the only way to achieve our economic prosperity, conservation and sustainability goals is to engage our stakeholders. Organizations cannot work in isolation and Canadians deserve a say.

With collaboration in mind, DFO will use constant communication and engagement as our preferred way of doing business. Our resource management objectives will be clear. Our science will be accessible and our partners will be involved.

I have said it time and time again. I will repeat it today: All players will be at the table and all voices will be heard. I look forward to working with your committee and hearing your input.

Thank you very much for inviting me here today. I will be happy to take any questions. I am sure that for the ones I cannot answer, I have staff here who can answer them.

The Chair: Thank you very much, minister. We will go to questions. However, honourable senators, before we do that, we have to impose some discipline because, minister, you are a magnet. We have more members here this morning than we normally have. Honourable senators, there are 11 of us around the table. We have about one hour with the minister. To be fair, I think we must limit questioning to five minutes.

There will be a second round. The officials will stay after the minister goes and we can get into more discussions. We have to impose some discipline on ourselves. Please be succinct and concise in asking your questions. You may not have the opportunity to ask all the questions you want, but we have to do that to be fair.

[Translation]

Senator Robichaud: Madam Minister, we would like to welcome you and tell you how pleased we are to have you here. You mentioned, at the beginning and end of your presentation, that the department is considering investments to help fishermen weather the economic storm they are facing.

I am from southeastern New Brunswick. When I go to the Northumberland Strait coast, I can see your riding across the strait.

The lobster fishery is very important to us. Our season runs from August to October. In northern New Brunswick, the season starts around May 1. The fishermen are hearing that they will get only $3.25 a pound this year. Their expenses include diesel, bait and the wages of the crew. You can understand that, at that price, it is not always worth putting to sea. Can you reassure fishermen and convince them to go fishing by telling them they will earn enough for the year?

That is a tough question, but I think fishermen need reassurance.

[English]

Ms. Shea: You are right. You probably can see my riding from your house. I do come from a fishing family, and my family is also very concerned about where the price is going to be.

Although nobody knows for sure right now where the price will be, the department does have some flexibility in options that could help fishers with their input costs. If fishers want to buddy up, for example, use one boat as opposed to using two boats, we can be flexible in some of those areas to help reduce the input cost.

Right now, there is a community adjustment fund; the criteria are not written around it yet, but we hope it will assist those communities in need, and I see the fishing community as one of those communities.

I do know, in talking to many fishers, that back in the early 1990s the price had dipped very low. It went to a $1 per pound, and fishers went through a very tough time. However, can I assure them they will get a good price? No, I cannot do that.

We can work with processers to ensure that the processers have the access to credit that they so desperately need. The industry survives on credit because they carry such a large inventory at once. The better the processors do, the better the fishers will do.

I can tell you — as you would know from your background — that the industry is fragmented. They do not come together as processors and harvesters for the good of the industry; there is a degree of mistrust between them.

Senator Robichaud: Really?

Ms. Shea: What I have seen, during this last six months, is more of a willingness to come together to have some type of an organization to promote the entire industry, where everyone will benefit. Coming out of this tough economic time, I think the lobster industry will be in a much better position than it is today.

Senator Adams: Minister, you mentioned some of the work with some people in the Arctic. Since the beginning, after we settled the land claim, I have been talking about the commercial fishery in two areas in Nunavut. I have spent 25 years studying how a system could work in Nunavut for commercial fishing. We had an agreement in the land claim in clause 5.37 and the issue of harvesting.

I have a little difficulty understanding what you mean by harvesting — is it subsistence hunting or commercial harvesting? I have a little difficulty with that in the clause of the Nunavut Land Claim agreement.

After we settled the Nunavut Land Claim, the Baffin Fisheries Coalition became responsible for regulating fish quotas in areas OA and OB, as well as regulating quotas for cold-water shrimp down in the Hudson Strait. The way the system works right now is not helping the people in the community.

At the time the land claim was settled, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., NTI, set up a corporation. Now the corporation has an agreement in which they own some of a company in partnership with people from outside of Canada, and local people are interested to get into some part of the quotas.

We have the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board set up by DFO; the chairman is from your department. A couple of members on the board are from the Department of Indian Affairs, and two are from the Northwest Territories, outside the Nunavut.

Could you look into it, especially now that some of the communities have been left out of the quotas? They have formed a group called the Arctic Fishery Alliance. They applied for some of the quotas. Then we have heard from DFO and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board that you need to have special equipment to fish in areas OA and OB. It is very difficult for a small community even to get a 65-foot boat; yet the policy is that you cannot go out to do commercial fishing with a vessel that is less than 100 feet.

It is really difficult. Millions of dollars have been made up there from fishing, especially for the Greenland turbot and from the better fishing areas to the east. If we have close to $60 million a year from the fishing industry up there and it is not coming into the community, it is hard for the people in the future. In some of the communities, up to 85 per cent of the people have no jobs.

The Chair: We will have to given the minister time to reply. Otherwise, your time will run out.

Senator Adams: Maybe I can get some answers in the second round.

The Chair: Minister, do you want to try and reply?

Ms. Shea: I think there was a lot of advice there that the senator was getting to instead of a question, but I will say that Nunavut has a fishery that is in development. The Wildlife Management Board does distribute the quotas among all the stakeholders, and we do work with them.

If the senator's concern is that the local people should have more participation in the fishery, we are working toward that with the new harbour that is being built. I understand there is the fish plant there. Also, I believe Minister Leona Aglukkaq is announcing some training dollars for people to be trained in the fishery.

I know a group is working on a small boat fishery, which I assume would be for the local people to develop their own fishery. Some progress is being made, but I certainly welcome any of your suggestions.

Senator Adams: The same thing applies to the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard and the military have the Rangers, and they help a lot. We live up there and could do the monitoring on Arctic sovereignty. We look forward to the Coast Guard working with the local people in the future. We need the Coast Guard's help, as we seem to be having more problems with whales and narwhals.

Last fall, in November, I was going to phone you to send an icebreaker up there to help about 170 narwhals that were trapped in the ice. The hunters and trappers ended up slaughtering about 570 of them, because icebreakers would take seven days to travel up there from St. John, Newfoundland, and the whales would not have survived.

Minister, we should have more icebreakers in the future, with some stationed in the North, because every year whales are trapped in the ice. In the last four or five years that problem seems to be getting worse. We should look into some way that the Coast Guard could have more ships up there in the Arctic where they are needed, rather than down south.

Ms. Shea: What happened to the narwhals was unfortunate, but there is a commercial narwhal hunt, and the hunters did get them. At the time that the narwhal issue was ongoing, I found out that if you have an icebreaker to go up to free the narwhals, they are sensitive to noise and would probably have gone further under the ice and may not have survived anyway.

Senator Cowan: Welcome, minister. I was pleased to hear your comments during your opening statement on the seal hunt and the government's support for a sustainable and humane seal hunt. As you know, that is also the position of the Liberal Party of Canada. I do not know about other parties, but there is a common support for that seal harvest or hunt between the two major parties in the country.

I want to give you an opportunity to clarify a few things with respect to that. This is obviously a highly controversial issue amongst some people, and we all agree that there are people who are less interested in the seals than they are perhaps in promoting their own fundraising efforts for other purposes. You are aware as well that Senator Harb introduced a bill in the Senate and could not find a single senator anywhere in the place to support him in any way. I think that says something about the judgment of the rest of the Senate. I am troubled because on March 3, your department published and distributed a statement by my colleague Senator Manning, which said, amongst other things that sealers need to know that the Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party want to ban the seal hunt. That is clearly wrong and inaccurate, but most importantly for the purposes of my question this morning, your department subsequently acknowledged that it was inappropriate to have published the statement of a private parliamentarian on a government website and to distribute that at government expense.

Were you advised by anybody in your department that it was inappropriate to have posted and distributed that statement? If so, why did you go ahead and do it? If not, why not? Also, was an invoice issued to the Conservative Party of Canada, as you indicated it would be? How much was that invoice, and has the invoice been paid?

On that same day, you issued a statement alleging that there was a hidden agenda on the part of the Liberal Party. In that statement, you said what is more telling are the actions of Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, and that his approval of such appalling legislation, referring to the Harb bill, has exposed the hidden agenda of the Liberal Party to put an end to Canada's sealing industry.

What evidence did you have then and do you have now that would support that statement?

Ms. Shea: I guess it would be a lack of evidence, starting with your last question, because if the Liberal Party of Canada supported the seal hunt, then I would expect that there would be a statement to that effect from the leader, which I do not believe we have seen. I will say that even the introduction of legislation without a seconder, when that type of stuff hits the airwaves in Europe, undermines many things that we have been trying to do in Europe to promote the seal hunt.

With respect to the press release, it was not the department. It was an administrative error and should never have happened. I am not sure if the bill for the press release has gone to the Conservative Party of Canada, because I do not have that information, but that is who the bill was to go to.

Senator Cowan: On the last point, will you find out? Perhaps you would be good enough to table the invoice here and, as well, indicate whether it was paid.

Ms. Shea: Certainly.

Senator Cowan: With respect to the bill, you will agree with me that private members in either the House of Commons or in the Senate are entitled to introduce bills into their respective legislative chambers, and those bills are not necessarily supported by the party of whom that individual member or senator is a member. Is that correct?

Ms. Shea: I do not know what your experience has been, but normally bills, in my experience —

Senator Cowan: I am speaking of private member's bills.

Ms. Shea: Even private member's bills, if a member of your party is bringing forward a bill, I would expect that members of your party would be aware of it.

Senator Cowan: As an example, the recent Garry Breitkreuz bill was introduced by a private member, a Conservative member. Is that a bill supported by the Conservative government.

Ms. Shea: We will have to wait and see.

Senator Cowan: I believe it is not, and I believe the government has already distanced itself. That is my point. I suggest to you that it is unfair to allege that an individual bill which you know received no support from any member of the Senate has the support of the leader and the party of which that person is a member. I suggest that is unfair, and I would ask you to acknowledge that.

The Chair: I think the time has passed and I would like to go on to other questioners. We are trying to monitor the time carefully, and I think we are being as accurate as we can.

Senator Downe: Welcome, minister. You indicated in your opening comments that you are the first fisheries minister in 50 years from Prince Edward Island, and I assume Honourable Angus MacLean was the last one. You have big shoes to fill, and I am sure you will, as other Islanders have in that important department.

The fishery is in real trouble in Prince Edward Island. Individuals and organizations in Prince Edward Island are looking to the Government of Canada to provide financial assistance. When is your government going to start a buyback program for the Prince Edward Island fishing industry?

Ms. Shea: Of course, this issue has been around for years. This issue, particularly the issue of the Northumberland Strait, where too many people are chasing too few lobsters, was brought to my attention in my capacity as a provincial politician.

It has been an issue for 10 years or more. I have been very honest with all the fishermen's organizations. The Government of Canada would never have enough money to buy out all the licences across the country. It is not only a Prince Edward Island issue. There are other species in other provinces requiring rationalization.

I have told the organizations that we will support self-rationalization however we can with our policies. It is something we are working on with the organizations.

There are no less than three different organizations on Prince Edward Island coming forward with a plan for rationalization. Other levels of government, the industry and the organizations can all play a role in bringing those industries to a sustainable position.

You have heard me talk about certification. Our fishery has to go through a certification and will have to establish labelling to ensure consumers that the product comes from a sustainable fishery. All species will be subject to labelling and that will include the lobster industry. We will have to demonstrate that each product comes from a sustainable fishery. Rationalization is one way to address the sustainability issue.

Senator Downe: Minister, you are correct. Fishing area 26A is a major problem in the lobster industry.

Given that your government is prepared to assist the Ontario auto industry with over $4 billion to date, why are you not prepared to assist the fisheries industry, which is so important to Prince Edward Island, and announce a buyback program?

Ms. Shea: As I said, we cannot announce a buyback program for one province. A program would have to be for the entire country. The federal government has made repayable loans available to the auto industry. We have a community access fund where the criteria are under development. We hope to be able to address fisheries issues through this fund, but the criteria have not been approved. It is a work in progress.

I understand the problems facing many of the fishers in P.E.I. I have had many long hours of conversations with them about those problems.

Senator Cook: Thank you for coming, minister. I come from the other island.

One of my concerns is how slowly things are moving. My notes tell me that in the February 2008 Budget, $720 million was budgeted to replace the Louis S. St-Laurent and $8 million was budgeted for the construction of the harbour in Pangnirtung. Where we are on the road to completion with those two initiatives?

In your opening remarks, you talked about $175 million for new Coast Guard vessels. The people who live in the North are people of the sea. They live on the coastlines. There is something inherently wrong when a fisherman in the North does not have a harbour and has to land a catch in Greenland. This is my angst, especially concerning the harbour in Pangnirtung.

Ms. Shea: I may have to ask one of the staff to respond to where we are concerning the projects. However, we put an additional $11 million into the harbour project at Pangnirtung, to accelerate its construction.

Claire Dansereau, Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: The building of the wharf in Pangnirtung will be a long process. That is why additional monies were given this year in the budget. It is in recognition of the fact that it will be a long and complicated project.

Some of the money originally in the budget was used to start the process and to start digging into what would be required from an engineering perspective. As the minister said, more money was allocated to that project in the economic stimulus package. We are moving as fast as we can, recognizing there is not much knowledge in the engineering world about how to build a wharf under those circumstances. The work has started.

Senator Cook: If I hear you correctly, we are still at the feasibility stage with the Pangnirtung harbour?

Ms. Dansereau: We are at the engineering stage. We have determined where we would like to situate the wharf and we are now doing more detailed engineering.

Senator Raine: Thank you for being here today. I find it fascinating what is happening in the North. I support everyone's desire to see that wharf built quickly.

My question is about salmon farms in B.C. In February, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that the federal government, not the province, would have jurisdiction over the management of salmon farms. I would like an update on how this will work. Will there be a separate department? How will it be set up? Will it happen expeditiously?

Ms. Shea: It is my understanding that the federal government manages the aquaculture industry in only one province, which is Prince Edward Island. Since this decision has come down, one of the private companies has appealed the decision. This could take a longer time in court.

Regardless of who manages the aquaculture industry, we have worked with the province of B.C. to ensure that the aquaculture industry is thriving. It is a growing industry and we have to ensure that the industry is managed in the best possible manner. We have experts in the field providing information to the province.

Senator Raine: Will DFO's policy of sustainability and ecosystem impact reviews also look at that with regard to the fish farms? Is there baseline knowledge of what the ecosystem was like before the farms were established to provide a comparison?

The public is concerned about Atlantic salmon on the West Coast.

Ms. Shea: There is and I am sure that information probably exists somewhere. We do not have it with us today. We do a lot of scientific research on aquaculture. We are trying to come up with regulations. Although the provinces carry out the management of the aquaculture industry, we are trying to establish regulations that will apply across the board for better management and consistency of the fisheries.

Senator Brown: I want to congratulate you on your fight to preserve the seal hunt. I am a substitute today for Senator Johnson. I would like to say that even in Alberta we feel the damage that is done to the way of life of our citizens, sometimes by decisions made in other countries. For example, I refer to our trip to the Arctic last year, where the former mayor of Norman Wells said that we destroyed the lives of the northern people.

We were taken aback by that comment until he said we changed their lives because we gave them rifles and snowmobiles. We found out how greatly we changed their lives when we saw young children up there with cell phones and laptops.

Those changes need to be moderated, and I think that is what the fight for the seal hunt is all about. We need some kind of moderation where you do not turn the whole society upside down overnight. I support your fight to preserve that way of life.

I will use one example and ask you if you would consider using that example in your fight. The last time I saw this country put severe restrictions on a particular species, it was on the hunting of the Canada goose. We are now faced with so many of them across North America that they are becoming a plague in parks and around airports. They are also damaging the ecosystem of small lakes where they gather. We are faced with trying to find out how we eliminate some of them now.

I ask you to consider using that example in your fight against the emotional tirades from Europe.

Ms. Shea: That is an excellent suggestion. I agree with you that there has to be a balance in nature. For people who talk to commercial fishermen, particularly on the East Coast, they will find out how much damage seals are doing to their fish. I have been given pictures by a halibut fisherman who held up six fish that absolutely nothing left but the bone, along with a picture he took of a seal beside his boat. Lobster fishermen will tell you that seals dive down into their traps and smash them to get the bait out of the traps. They definitely do some damage.

When we went to Europe to talk about seals with politicians, we took a seal hunter from Iqaluit with us. I thought his remarks were good. The seal hunter told them that although they are proposing a ban on seal products from Canada because they think the hunt is inhumane, they are willing to make an exception for the Inuit seal hunt. He told the politicians that this upset him because he felt he was being used so that the politicians could feel good about themselves. He pointed out that any ban on Canadian seal products was going to affect him, no matter if he was still allowed to hunt, because the Inuit do hunt commercially. If you kill the markets, you will affect the Inuit seal hunt as well.

Senator Manning: First, I would like to applaud the efforts of the department and the new minister concerning the seal hunt. The seal hunt is important to the coastal communities of not only Newfoundland and Labrador, but also many other parts of Canada.

I understand the challenges you face as a department and a government in dealing with the European Parliament. I understand the problems in Europe caused by the shenanigans of one of our parliamentarians, Senator Harb. It is important to note that Senator Harb is a Canadian parliamentarian. The message the IFAW and others in Europe are sending is that a Canadian parliamentarian is raising the issue here in Canada. He is hanging out with the IFAW. As my mother would say: "Tell me your company and I'll tell you your name." The bottom line is that is what we are dealing with here.

The all-important vote in the European Parliament in regard to the resolution put forward — banning seal products from the European Union — was proposed for April. That was the plan. We understand that it has been postponed until somewhere between May 4 and May 7.

I understand the challenges you face as a department and as a minister in dealing with this issue. Could you elaborate on what has happened in the last couple of months concerning our efforts to put our case forward in Europe, and what the plan is between now and when this vote takes place?

My final question is failing to have a successful vote in our favour in May, if the vote goes ahead, what are the government's plans and your plans as a department to deal with this issue beyond that date?

Ms. Shea: Since I have been appointed to DFO, this file has probably received more attention from me than any other file in the department. We have done a lot of work on this seal hunt file in trying to convince parliamentarians in Europe that we do have a humane seal hunt.

The issue was raised that the Europeans do not believe we have a humane seal hunt so we set about to assure them that we do. We engaged a panel of independent veterinarians and asked them to define a humane seal hunt. They did that and came back with some recommendations, which we used to formulate regulations around the seal hunt.

Their recommendations showed that 98 per cent of our seal hunt already met all the requirements of a humane hunt. Nevertheless, we rolled the recommendations into regulation. One of the recommendations was that the sealers receive training. We have also embarked on that training to ensure the sealers know what a humane seal hunt is and know their parameters.

We went back to the European Union and said you demanded our seal hunt be humane and here is the proof that it is. We are doing everything according to this independent panel of veterinarians. However, that did not mean anything. They were bound that they were going ahead on this issue.

When I went to Europe, I met with parliamentarians who told me off the record that this was a political issue for them. The NGOs and special interest groups had created such a fuss among the European public that the public was calling for a ban of the Canadian seal hunt. Parliamentarians were now forced to act upon the wishes of their constituents, which were largely based on emotion, not fact.

One of the parliamentarians actually received an email while we were in the room with her. The email said that if she did not support a ban of the Canadian seal hunt, the seal population would become extinct.

When the parliamentarians enter Parliament to go to work, the NGOs are there giving out small stuffed white seals. It is a public relations campaign on the part of the special interest groups. The special interest groups are spreading misinformation and pulling at the emotions of the Europeans. It has become a political issue for the parliamentarians. We have fought our case with them and asked them to make decisions based on fact, not on emotion. We hope that they are doing that. The vote has been postponed until May. We hope that they are taking some more time to look at the facts and to look at what the outcome might be, depending on what route they decide to take.

We have had our own public relations campaign in the media, with mail-outs to parliamentarians. Our ambassador, Loyola Sullivan, has done a lot of work on this file as well, contacting as many people as possible. We have been contacting parliamentarians as by phone, trying to drum up some support for our side of this issue.

Pending an outcome that is not in our favour, we have made it quite clear that we will take options available to us, which include trade action through the WTO. They are well aware of that and of how important the seal hunt is to Canada and that we are not about to lie down on this one.

Senator MacDonald: Welcome, minister and officials. On the East Coast of late, there has been a lot of discussion about a potential constabulary or policing role for the Coast Guard in the fisheries. It has raised concern with people. It seems to be perceived as a bit of a departure from the traditional role of the Coast Guard. Can you give us an update or the current thinking on this proposal?

Ms. Shea: I will ask the Coast Guard commissioner to respond to that question.

George Da Pont, Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: There has been speculation on that aspect in various quarters, but the existing role of the Coast Guard in enforcement and security activities is a support role. It provides assets, resources, and some expertise to assist those agencies and departments that have a frontline role in enforcement. We have a major role in supporting conservation and protection officers in enforcement activities in NAFO and in other parts of the country. We support the activities of the RCMP, the Canada Border Services Agency and others, as they ask us, but there are no plans under way to expand that role at the moment.

Senator MacDonald: My family has a long history in the Coast Guard. I have two uncles who were captains in the Coast Guard and many family members who sailed in the Coast Guard. There was a lot of talk about an increased constabulary role. Do they carry any weapons now? What sort of policing role do they have? When you talk about support, what are the elements of that support?

Mr. Da Pont: It varies. About 50 individuals in the Coast Guard are trained to carry arms in support of conservation and protection officers, and that is mostly in the NAFO area. The rest of the support is generally in providing vessel time. Our marine communications and traffic control centres provide all other centres with information on marine domain awareness. These marine operational security centres provide information to the Department of National Defence and other agencies. We do have a very small number of trained and authorized personnel who carry arms. However, they carry arms in very select situations and only in support of the authorized and responsible frontline agency.

Senator MacDonald: There is no immediate change or departure in the planning stage.

Mr. Da Pont: No, there is not.

Senator Watt: Minister, welcome, and your officials. I would like to address three issues. You have already talked about Pangnirtung. Your official, I believe, said that it will take some time for that to be completed because of the unknown infrastructure, the location, geographical areas and so on. It is the first of a kind, I guess, that is being built. I understand that. We would like to know what you mean when you say it will take a long time to complete. Is that one year, two years, three years? Do you have a rough idea? How long will have to wait for the harbour?

The other matter is a well-known issue that has been hanging around us for quite some time, especially in my backyard, in Nunavik. Some people were charged two years ago for harvesting beluga. A quota was no longer available, but they managed to harvest one more beluga. On that account, the helicopter arrived while they were butchering what they caught and landed adjacent to where the butchering the beluga. They charged the people that harvested that beluga. At the same time, they destroyed the meat and the muktuk because of the winds generated by the helicopter.

Minister, this issue has been around us for quite some time now. They kept postponing the court case on this issue. I believe Fisheries and Oceans has made up its mind to go ahead and charge these people to make them an example to the others.

I am sure that you are sensitive to this issue. We are going through an economic crisis, much more so in Nunavik than in the southern portion of the country. You must understand that we pay two taxes as Aboriginal people, provincial tax and federal tax. We are the only ones that pay two taxes in this country, as Aboriginals. First Nations do not pay taxes, but we do.

On top of that, we are the biggest taxpayer in this country. The market value of our dollar today is under 38 cents, and it is getting worse every day. We are getting to the point of being choked. Even if we were paid the same level of dollars, our dollars do not have any purchasing power.

On that account, I suggest to you that the people who harvested that beluga needed it to feed their families, and this will not be an isolated issue. This will happen from time to time, regardless of the conservation laws.

The Chair: Senator Watt, you might want to give the minister time to reply.

Senator Watt: Would you give me a second time around?

The Chair: Yes, absolutely.

Senator Watt: I will stop there, then, or else I will be flooding you with all kinds of information, and I need some kind of a clear answer on that issue.

Ms. Shea: On the first issue with Pangnirtung, we are looking at a three-year period, which would be the shortest timeline.

With regard to the beluga, I am not aware of this case. If this is a case currently before the courts, it is a sensitive issue. I should not be commenting on the case even if I did know the specifics.

Senator Watt: Will you at least look into it? You do not need to comment on it.

Ms. Shea: You brought it to my attention and I thank you.

I am interested in your comment when you said this would happen from time to time. Did you mean that you will promote people doing things outside the law?

Senator Watt: No, it is not a question of promoting people to go against the law. When people are hungry and they have to feed their families, where do they go? The only place they can go is to either the sea or the land. We do not have the same luxury of going to the corner store. Prices today are very high. They cannot afford it any more. It is getting worse. From that angle, I would appreciate very much if you could look into that issue.

The Chair: We will now start a second round of questions. Minister, how is your time?

Ms. Shea: I will have to take my leave now. Before I go I want to thank you for your questions. I appreciate any input that you have in the fisheries. Please do not be shy to send it along.

The Chair: Senator Robichaud, do you have a point?

Senator Robichaud: I wonder if the minister would like to answer my supplementary question that I would put to her in relation to the first question I asked.

Senator Manning: Mr. Chair, if we do that, we need to even the score. We should have a few questions.

The Chair: I have a list of six senators on the list for the second round. I do not think the minister will be able to stay that long.

Ms. Shea: Maybe could you send your supplementary questions to my office.

Senator Robichaud: I will ask your officials.

The Chair: Minister, before you go, I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for joining us this morning and for your answers. Perhaps we can do it again.

Ms. Shea: It is my pleasure.

[Translation]

Senator Robichaud: In my first question, I mentioned the lobster industry and the crisis that the fishermen and the entire industry have to face. From the minister's answer, I understood that she was closely monitoring the effect that the credit crisis was having on the processing industry. That is where it starts: processors need an operations fund in order to advance money to buyers, who then buy from the fishermen.

Can the department provide assistance to processors if they need help obtaining credit?

Ms. Dansereau: The department is not a lending institution. However, as the minister mentioned, the department can provide support to processors and other members of the industry through the Business Development Bank of Canada and the export development bank, as they are the institutions that issue credit.

We are working with the banks as much as possible to help processors. The department is not a bank and therefore does not issue credit. But, as the minister indicated, we are doing what we can to help them.

Senator Robichaud: I do not understand what you mean by "to help them." Are you simply saying that there is nothing you can do except to send them off to a bank?

Ms. Dansereau: We work with them to help them understand the markets. We encourage them to take a market-centred approach so they can determine how to access better market conditions. We give them information and we work with them so that they better understand the world we are living in in the hope of opening up markets. As the minister said, we also assist them with marketing. We are helping them however we can under our mandate.

Senator Robichaud: Will your efforts in marketing, in opening new markets, in promotion, have any impact on the upcoming spring fishery, which, in northern New Brunswick, is just about to start at the beginning of May? The season is fast approaching, and of course you are aware that the fishermen are very concerned.

Ms. Dansereau: Yes, indeed; we are aware, and we share their concerns. We began our promotion work with them in December. We are working with the provinces.

We provided access to funding for marketing purposes. I do not know whether the money was spent, but it was made available to them.

Of course, we understand everyone's concerns, as does the minister, and we share those concerns.

[English]

The Chair: Concerning our process, the house sits at 1:30 p.m. I am prepared to stay as long as we need. If the officials are prepared to stay as long as we need and the members around the table are prepared to stay, we can have some latitude in questioning. I wanted to offer that to you as a timeline.

Senator Adams: I did not get an answer from the minister. My concern is mostly with hunters and trappers, but I will start with local fishing. Pangnirtung used to have 150 licences for ice fishing at one time. With climate change, local people have not been able to ice fish for the last three years. About three years ago, they lost all the equipment — all the hooks, equipment and cabins. It all floated away with the sea ice. They are down to 3,000 metres where they used to fish. That does not exist any longer.

Meanwhile, insurance companies do not like to insure any ice fishing activities now. We are trying to get compensation from the Nunavut government for the equipment lost. It is not fair for the people who can not go ice fishing any more or for the fish plant in Pangnirtung.

In Grise Fiord, Resolute Bay, Arctic Bay and Bylot Island — known as the Arctic Fishery Alliance — most people are hunters and trappers. Many local individuals did not have any money and in some ways hunting, trapping and harvesting of items such as seals and caribou has provided funds beyond what the Government of Nunavut government has done.

Last year, equipment arrived too late to do research. They brought equipment to drill the ice and to have 150 hooks on one line. I saw them using this equipment near Pangnirtung. You can put up to three or four lines in one hole.

Those four communities would like to do the same thing the others did last year. This year they will try to do it because they have equipment. Last year, they did the testing inshore to see how much turbot they were able to harvest in those four communities.

In the meantime, hunters and trappers received a little bit of money to buy the equipment. The minister said earlier they have $200 million for the study across Canada. The department should try to provide some of that money to those communities to do a bit of the research. DFO has not done much research in Nunavut, especially inshore, on the 12-mile limit. Those communities that are familiar with the fish and the ice in the area should be given more help to study commercial fishing. They should also have more quotas every year so that they can earn more money from the fish quotas. That is my concern.

Ms. Dansereau: I may be wrong in this, but my sense is that the concerns you are raising would normally be managed by the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. I think the rightful place for those kinds of conversations would be there, although, as senators know, we work closely with them. We will take the concerns back to them, but I strongly recommend that those concerns also be made known to the management board.

Senator Adams: Mr. Chair, I told the minister earlier that if you have no equipment or vessels, you cannot get the quotas. That is what the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board is telling the local people. They bring the foreigners to fish up there and leave out the people of the community. I would like to know if that is the policy at DFO. If the Inuit people ask for quotas, do they need to have vessels? Is this a DFO regulation?

Ms. Dansereau: As the minister answered, there is some consideration being given to various fishing vessel sizes, and I know that work is ongoing. We do not have an answer at this point but we are working with the management board to address that question.

The Chair: Part of Senator Adams' concern is the jurisdiction — who actually manages. It is clear that there is a land claim settled and it is clear that the wildlife board is there; but it is also clear that DFO has a responsibility for federal fisheries, which it now, as I understand, shares with them. It has not given up its jurisdiction completely; DFO is still part of the planning and administration process.

Part of Senator Adams' frustration is in finding out who we go to for answers and who can give us answers — whether it is the wildlife management board or DFO or a combination of both. There is a very grey area there where we are not able to get answers from the people in charge. That is part of the problem, as we understood, when we were in the Arctic.

Ms. Dansereau: You are right that there is a bit of a grey zone in all these things. Where there is clarity is in the land base or the water base within the land claim area; that is clearly within the management board's purview to make decisions, although they must obviously make those decisions in a recommendation to the minister. The minister will not very often get involved in the allocation within that area, because it comes via recommendation of the management board.

Outside of that geographic line, it clearly becomes the minister's decision and discretion. However, it is generally done in consultation with at least the Government of Nunavut.

Senator Adams: The quota for OA is 100 per cent Nunavut quota. There should be some part that goes to the communities, not big commercial fishermen from outside Nunavut. That is what is happening right now, and that is why we are trying to find out how they were able to set that up.

Last year, Burton Island had a quota of 1,030 tonnes. We do not get one pound this year because they say you have no vessels. In the meantime, they can hire vessels from outside. If they get the quotas, they can pass them on to anyone from the company down there in Newfoundland or Nova Scotia or anywhere else, and they get the quotas. That is why we want to get something started to keep the quotas in the community, not go to Europe and other fisheries.

The Chair: We have had some hearings on that issue. We explored it in the past, and we are still searching for some answers. We will keep probing.

Senator Cook: My first question was about the replacement for the Louis S. St-. Laurent. This committee has been told repeatedly by many witnesses that the Coast Guard fleet is aging and that it takes considerable lead time to replace an icebreaker. The Louis S. St-Laurent is 40 years old.

In the budget for 2008, there was $750 million allocated to replace it. Have we put our foot in the water yet? Have we begun anything; and at the end of the day, will it take five years or ten years? If this country has an aging fleet of Coast Guard vessels, when we look at the Arctic and climate change, there is a critical mass there that needs to be addressed. We do not have the capacity.

That is my frustration and concern and I would like some answers.

Mr. Da Pont: I share your concern on the need to move quickly. We are doing that and we certainly have gone farther than putting our toes in the water.

We are very close to finalizing what we call in our jargon the "mission profile" for the polar icebreaker. That is essentially defining the things it has to be capable of doing.

We are looking at it as an asset that will be a Government of Canada asset to deliver Coast Guard programs, but also to support the programs of a lot of other departments. It is not an easy, straightforward thing to do because we are acquiring an asset that we will have for at least 40 years. Therefore, we are trying to assess the capacity and the requirements, not just for today — today's are easy to define — but over a period of time.

We are close to finalizing that document. From that document, we would develop what we call the "statement of operational requirements," which is essential to begin the design of the vessel and the tendering process.

When the government announced funding for this, it did note that this was going to be a long process. I explained the reasons for that the last time I was before the committee. We are aiming to have the replacement for the Louis S. St-Laurent in 2017. That is in about eight years. We are looking at beginning the first parts of the tendering process next year, as we finalize the operational requirements and the technical documents that we have to prepare.

It is very well under way. Actually, it is a bit ahead of the schedule we had anticipated when we began this project.

With relation to the other icebreakers, the rest of the icebreaker fleet, with the exception of the Terry Fox, is actually in very good condition, notwithstanding the age of some of the vessels. We have invested significantly in those vessels so we are very confident that the existing fleet, the medium icebreakers, will not need to be replaced until after 2020. In terms of our fleet renewal planning, we are aiming for beginning those replacements in that period.

With the Terry Fox, we would hope to look at options for that sooner because we feel that vessel will have to be replaced a couple of years or so after the Louis S. St-Laurent.

The Chair: Other Coast Guard ships need to be replaced. Is there a program for replacing those ships?

When we were in Iqaluit, we discovered that the Coast Guard headquarters for Iqaluit is in Sarnia, Ontario. Does the Coast Guard have any plans for moving the administration of the Coast Guard closer to the source?

I ask that because of what is happening in the Arctic now. We discovered, as everyone knows, that the ice cap is receding. There will be more vessels moving through there, more pollution, more mineral activity, et cetera.

It seems to some of us that it would make sense now, given the situation in which Canada finds itself with what is happening in the Arctic, to move the administration of our Coast Guard affairs. There needs to be an overall strategy and other departments need to buy into that too. However, the Coast Guard could take a decision to move its administration closer to the source in the Arctic of its own volition.

Mr. Da Pont: Regarding your first question about the overall plans for renewal of the Coast Guard fleet, in the past few budgets, the government has invested a total of $1.4 billion in fleet renewal. This money is earmarked to replace about 17 of the 40 large vessels that we have now. A significant investment has been earmarked and made. I am very encouraged by that.

Like every other entity in government, we also have a longer term fleet renewal plan that we will have to bring back for government consideration at appropriate points.

In regard to shifting some of Coast Guard administration from Sarnia to the North, that is not an issue we have reviewed to date. Our field operations are conducted in the North. As I am sure the committee is aware, we have two maritime communications and traffic centres — one in Iqaluit, one in Inuvik — that operate seasonally. We have a base in Hay River. We also have pre-positioned some of our environmental response capacity in a number of communities in the North. Many of the frontline activities are done in the North. Every year, nine to 10 vessels operate in the North between June and November, generally.

We have a very significant northern operation. The administrative support for that is in Sarnia at the moment. One challenge for us is that all of these activities are seasonal. They take place for only for six months of the year. Therefore, we have not really assessed any longer-term requirements in that area.

The Chair: That is true. It is seasonal. Fishing is seasonal too. However, DFO on the East Coast operates out of Halifax and St. John's and on the West Coast operates out of British Columbia. This is as it should be.

It seems to us that there is an anomaly with the Arctic. The government generally recognizes that for Atlantic-related functions, they need to be near the Atlantic to administer them and the same is true relating to the Pacific. This is not only in regard to your department, but other departments too. However, the same thing does not apply in the Arctic. The government seems to think it can administer the Arctic from Ontario.

That simply does not make a lot of sense to us, particularly now. I think there is a consensus on the committee about this matter. We need to move on this issue.

Another question regards staffing. There is attrition in the Coast Guard. Have you considered or do you have a policy for recruiting Inuit into the Coast Guard?

Mr. Da Pont: Yes, that issue was raised the last time we were here as I recall. We have begun that process. We have not yet put as much formal structure around it as I would like. We have started with expanding, over the course of this year, the presence of the Coast Guard Auxiliary in the Arctic to four new communities. This is accompanied by the requisite training for members of these communities.

In terms of our other activities, we are making Aboriginal and Inuit hiring a clear objective and target for our recruitment strategies in a variety of areas.

One challenge for us is translating this desire into reality. Currently, those jobs in the North are largely seasonal. They are available from June to November. Now, we have people coming from the south to do many of those jobs. How we would work a completely seasonal operation is a challenge for northern hiring. Whether we would find people willing to work in the south in the off period is a problem.

However, we are looking very seriously at this matter and trying to build it into our recruitment strategy across the board as we go forward. As you rightly note, we will be replacing many people over the next five to seven years. It affords us the opportunity to make real progress in the area.

Senator Cowan: I am not sure whether this question is to the deputy minister or the commissioner. You may decide.

My question has to do with replacement and replenishment of your fleet. In 2006-07, announcements were made with respect to fisheries science vessels, offshore oceanographic vessels and mid-shore patrol vessels. An estimate of $750 million was made and then towards the end of last year, it was determined it would cost more than that. Therefore, plans were shelved.

Can you give us an update on where that program stands now and when we might expect to see some of those vessels come on stream bearing in mind what the commissioner said about the lead time necessary?

I assume these vessels are less complicated than perhaps the replacement of the Louis S. St-Laurent or the Terry Fox.

Mr. Da Pont: The process that was cancelled last year was a bidding process to acquire 12 mid-shore patrol vessels. You are right; these are relatively simple vessels compared to a polar icebreaker. They were cancelled because the bids we received at the time significantly exceeded the available funding.

I am happy to say that on March 31 our colleagues in Public Works, with whom we work closely on those procurement processes, posted a new request for proposal bidding process for those mid-shore patrol vessels. We have resumed and restructured some aspects of the process. I am confident that we will have a successful process. Obviously, we are also proceeding in very different economic and market conditions than was the case a year ago.

Senator Cowan: Commissioner, you spoke about the mid-shore patrol vessels. What about the offshore fishery science vessels and the offshore fishery oceanographic science vessel? Has there been any change in the capacity?

You mentioned changes in the specifications. Can you give us some indication of what the capacity of these mid-shore patrol vessels will be with respect to operation in Arctic waters? What is the target date to have them on duty?

Mr. Da Pont: The mid-shore patrol vessels will have no capacity for Arctic operations. They will not be designed to operate in ice.

Senator Cowan: What is the breaking capacity?

Mr. Da Pont: They have no breaking capacity. They will not be able to operate in ice. They are not designed to do that.

Assuming that we are successful in getting into a contract this year, we are anticipating the delivery of the first of those mid-shore patrol vessels in late 2011.

With regard to the science vessels and the oceanographic vessels, we hope to be in a position to begin the bidding processes on those early next year.

Senator Watt: A big part of my question has already been answered, so I will focusing on the last part of your response.

If they are not suitable to operate in the Arctic for our scientific requirements, how will we deal with that? If they can only operate in the areas that are free of ice, what is the plan for the future? The ice is melting now, but for a number of years there will still be ice on a yearly basis, even though it may melt during the summer.

How will Canada be able to do the necessary scientific work in the Arctic if we do not have equipment that can operate in the North? That is my big concern.

On the seal hunt, we have been battling this issue for quite a number of years. We have been arguing the same principles year after year and trying to impress upon the European Community how we harvest the seals.

Should we not begin to develop more convincing arguments, such as full utilization, for example? When you talk about full utilization, it becomes an issue of taste. How do you deal with that?

I will make a suggestion for the department to consider in trying to come up with a solution. How do we get out of this mess? I have not heard an answer to that yet.

We want to promote sealing as an industry like any other. Our weakness might be on the concept of full utilization, including the meat. How can we publicize that we are not concerned only with the skins but with the by-products as well? We are making a good success of marketing by-products such as oil, which is very dear to the Inuit.

If we can encourage the two international communities to compete on recipes for seal meat, perhaps that would deal with the arguments of the animal rights groups. We must say that the meat is good. If many of us who live in the Arctic did not utilize the seals, I do not think we would be here today. Seal has kept us alive for many years, and continues to today.

Mr. Da Pont: I will start on the questions about Arctic science and the mid-shore patrol vessels. As I said, those mid-shore patrol vessels are not designed to operate in the Arctic. Their main functions will be to support enforcement and security activities and search and rescue activities.

Your question on Arctic science is very good. Almost all of our icebreakers provide a significant amount of support for Arctic science every year. One of them, the Amundsen, is exclusively a science research vessel. Others, like the Louis S. St-Laurent, spend a significant amount of their time in the Arctic on science activities.

As we move to replace those vessels, and I will use the replacement for the Louis S. St-Laurent as an example, the ability to support Arctic science activities is a fundamental part of the plan. We will be incorporating that ability into the design and procurement of the vessel, and we will do the same as we move to replace the other icebreakers.

We provide significant support for Arctic science now. I see that continuing and being factored into our future planning.

Ms. Dansereau: On the seal hunt, it is difficult to find arguments that would change the minds of those who are against the hunt. You are right in saying that we have been trying for a long time and we have not succeeded. I do not think there is an argument that could convince those who are against the hunt to change their minds. However, there are many who have been convinced by what we call the myths around the hunt. We are working hard to try to dispel those myths, and we will continue to do so.

As to whether a meat recipe competition would be helpful, I know that in many communities in the North and in the Magdalen Islands the meat is eaten. I do not think that the meat is yet exported. We do not have an industry that exports that meat, which would have to be started. However, we have made great progress on Omega 3 oils. There are growing communities in China and Europe that are interested in that Omega 3 oil.

We are also very supportive of the work of a doctor who is looking at using the heart valves of the seal for human heart valve replacement. He is making great strides. He is in Greece at the moment, which is where he conducts his research. He has been in Europe over the past month trying to ensure that people understand the value of the heart valve. It is deemed to be a good valve for humans because seals dive deep and that does something to the heart valve that could make it of benefit in valve transplant for humans. We are very supportive of that research. We work closely with the company that has a contract with that doctor.

We work as closely as we can with European parliamentarians. As the minister said, she has personally spoken on the phone with many of them. She has been to Europe. The senator and the ambassador have been to Europe, as have I. We all go and we target ministers within the council of ministers or parliamentarians to look at this from a different perspective.

We made progress over the winter, but as we know in Europe, we will only know for sure where we will land on the day of the votes, the last second of the last vote, because votes change all the time.

There were four parliamentary committees examining the question. Three have come out in favour of a total ban, one not — one in favour of a ban of derogation, which is what we are looking for. Going into the votes of those committees, it looked like they would be heading in a different direction. The one that came out in our favour we thought would come out with a ban. It is a difficult environment to gauge where it will finally end up, so we will use any arguments we think are helpful. We have placed ads in parliamentary magazines that showcase non-Inuit traditional hunting families, because there are some families in Canada that survived using the seal hunt as part of their yearly income for hundreds of years. It is traditional to Inuit and non-Inuit communities. We are making those cases to the Europeans.

The Chair: This not a new issue. When we were in government in the 1980s, I went with Senator De Bané who was Minister of Fisheries at that time on this same issue and met with the same people. Twenty years later, we are still doing it, but we just have to keep doing it; that is all.

Senator Robichaud: I thought we had changed the term "seal hunt" to "seal harvest." Today we are only talking about the "hunt," and I notice that my colleague Senator Watt always mentions "harvest." I think we should go that way rather than go for the "hunt." I encourage everyone to use "seal harvest."

[Translation]

In the OB region in the north, fishing quotas were given to interests in the south. There was a quota transfer in the region from one party to another, and the fishermen in Nunavut were not given a chance to bid on it—a chance that they have been asking for for some time, might I add. Can you assure me that this type of thing will not happen again and that these people will be given the right of first refusal?

Ms. Dansereau: To answer your first question about the terms "hunt" and "harvest", we did not agree to the change easily. In Europe, most stakeholders are more comfortable with the term "hunt". The people we work with in Europe are hunters. That is why we use "hunt" and sometimes "harvest". It all depends on who we are working with.

It really is a hunt, not a harvest, but we use both words.

Senator Robichaud: We could discuss that for a long time.

Ms. Dansereau: To answer your second question, the decision that was made last year had to do with a quota that had already been allocated. It was not an increase in quota, but a transfer of quota.

Our relations with Nunavut are guided by the policy, and we are not required to inform them or to give them the right of first refusal. Clearly, for the sake of maintaining good relations, it would have been preferable to discuss it with them. We agree on that, and we will do so in the future. But it is not a right of first refusal.

Senator Robichaud: Be that as it may, you understand the frustration of the people of Nunavut, who feel that, at very least, they were more or less denied the right to discuss it and submit a bid?

My next question has to do with ship building. In the current economic climate, all governments are trying to stimulate the economy. We have before us a construction project that could create jobs for a lot of people in Canada's ship industry. Have you considered the fact that it would be possible to build these ships in Canadian shipyards, and that would stimulate the economy?

Mr. Da Pont: Under the government's policy, all ships must be built in Canada. That provision has not changed.

As for stimulating the economy, the government's last budget allocated $175 million to the Coast Guard to purchase approximately 90 small vessels. This type of ship can be delivered very quickly because it is fairly simple in design. Not only will that purchase increase our capacity, but it will also stimulate the economy over the next two years.

Senator Robichaud: You can assure me that all ships required by the Coast Guard and by Fisheries and Oceans, including the new ice breaker, will be built in Canadian shipyards?

Mr. Da Pont: Yes, exactly. That is the government's policy.

[English]

Senator Raine: I would like to take issue with the deputy minister's comment that it does not matter whether it is called a harvest or a hunt. I think it is very important from a marketing point of view because this is a long-term issue and it will take many years to change people's attitudes. I would remind you that canola oil used to be called rape seed oil. It is important that we use the word "harvest."

Secondly, I support Senator Adams' request to ensure that Nunavut communities and fishers are allowed to purchase or get quota without owning a vessel. It really is a chicken-and-egg situation. If it is our desire to see Nunavut have economic opportunity, they would have to move in that direction.

Ms. Dansereau: On the first point, senator, I understand completely. We are careful with respect to when and how we use the various words. We are told that in Europe the word "hunt" is better in that it helps people to understand what is happening, but we also sometimes call it a fishery. Many of the groups we work with in Europe are hunters, and so they understand this is a fishery that is prosecuted using, by and large, guns and, a small percentage of the time, a hack pick. We are conscious of the use of the words. I do not dismiss it at all as an issue for us not to think about, and we do think about it all the time from a marking point of view and every other perspective.

On the circular argument of the chicken-and-egg quota without equipment, we are in discussion right now with the Wildlife Management Board. Some of it is their purview and we receive their recommendations, but we will continue that discussion.

On that point, Mr. Chair, I would like to offer a technical briefing, if your committee is interested. I sense some frustration in terms of questions not being answered, not today but in general, regarding decision making around the fishery in the North. I would be happy to provide a technical briefing in a less formal setting should your members be interested in finding out more.

The Chair: I think we would be very interested in that.

I would like to make a couple of comments on the issue of quotas. It seems to me that the figures show that the same percentages do not pertain in the Arctic as pertain in other coastal areas where the stock is adjacent. In other words, there is a greater percentage of local people harvesting a quota in other parts of Canada than in the Arctic. In 0A, as I recall, there is 100 per cent of the turbot quota for local people, whereas in 0B there is only 27 per cent. I do not think that squares with percentages elsewhere in the country.

Senator Raine has raised a question about quota before boats. There are precedents for this. When Roméo LeBlanc was Minister of Fisheries, we discovered an 11,000-tonne offshore shrimp quota off the Atlantic coast, and he issued licences of 1,000 tonnes each. Three of those licences were issued in Labrador, which had no boats. As a result of issuing those licences and that quota, a thriving co-op now survives on the coast of Labrador and, in fact, administers all of the plants in the southern part of Labrador.

Therefore, there is precedent for allocating quota without boats. The precedent shows that it is a very effective method of developing local fisheries. I would encourage the department to look at the precedents and to be governed by them, where they apply and where they are effective, because there is a lot of room for development.

We would be pleased to have a technical briefing, and we will ask the clerk to work with your people to set that up.

Senator Raine: I suppose you know that we are coming out with a report following the studies that were done last summer. We have just seen the draft. Perhaps it would be good to get together again when that report is out.

The Chair: Absolutely.

I want to mention to all honourable senators that we do intend to visit the Western Arctic. We visited the Eastern Arctic last spring, and it is our intention to go west. We had asked the Coast Guard to allow us to visit with them on one of their ships. We did not have a chance to do that, through no fault of the Coast Guard. We would like to raise the issue again to see whether, when we go west, we might be able to work something out if there is a Coast Guard vessel in the area. We will probably go as far as the Beaufort Sea. We can work that through with you, but I wanted to raise it as a possibility.

Mr. Da Pont: Yes, Mr. Chair, we would be happy to work with the clerk to try to make arrangements, obviously within our operational requirements.

The Chair: If there are no further questions, I would like to thank the officials for appearing here today. Hopefully you can come back again because these are ongoing issues that we intend to pursue.

(The committee adjourned.)

---