Fisheries Committee on Nov. 21st, 2006

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you.

Do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

You have 30 seconds, Monsieur Blais.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Regarding small craft harbours, which priority areas will the additional millions of dollars be invested in? Will the same priorities still apply, the same analytical grid we now use?

[Cal Hegge]

If I understand the question, yes, we have an analytical grid which applies to the divestiture of harbours. I believe the starting point is harbours which pose health and safety problems, which are a danger to the public, for instance. I imagine that will be one of our priorities.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

I would just like to take a few moments to tell you that in the past I have already expressed my disagreement with the analytical grid. In some places, including Quebec, people have done their homework, that is, Quebec has a divestiture program which works. We now have fewer small craft harbours than before in comparison with other places. That is why I would not want Quebec to be penalized for having done its homework because of one of the criteria you apply, which I believe affects the number of small craft harbours. I will ask questions on a different subject later on.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

We appreciate that, Monsieur Blais. Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Kamp.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

I'd like us to take a brief break from small craft harbours, although I'm sure we will be back there soon.

I'm feeling a little sorry for Mr. Da Pont, who hasn't answered any questions yet.

[George Da Pont, Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you, sir.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

On page seven of the deck, bearing in mind that the Canadian Coast Guard actually spends the bulk--the single biggest amount, I think--of the DFO budget, we see the figure $21 million under Canadian Coast Guard fleet renewal, and under the revised planned spending, a figure of $3.8 million. So I'm just wondering.... Most of the figures ended up in the supplementary estimates, but there is quite a large reduction there. We'd be curious to know what the difference is.

[George Da Pont]

The expenditure, when we did the report on plans and priorities, was a planned expenditure for the acquisition of the two new offshore science vessels that were reconfirmed in budget 2006. We are a little behind on that project.

When the minister took office he received a number of questions from a variety of people about whether we were adopting the right procurement strategy. So we reviewed all the available procurement options, and that took a little bit of time. What will happen is that we will not be able to spend the money this year as we had planned, but it will be carried forward to be spent in future years.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Okay.

We see the figure of $97.5 million to sustain and stabilize and so on. We've also heard of something called the transformational plan for $99 million. Can we assume that this is the same thing? Could you give us a bit more explanation on that?

[Cal Hegge]

It is the same. The $97.5 million is adjusted for an employee benefits package. They're both related to the transformational plan.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Okay.

The question of what we're spending on science and how that relates to previous and future years has been asked in the past. Can you give us a bit of a summary of that?

[Cal Hegge]

In terms of the transformational planned funding that we...?

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

No, just in general: what do we plan to spend on science as part of our vehicle operation?

[Larry Murray]

I'll kick it off, and maybe Cal or Monsieur Paradis may wish to join.

The minister's direction on science has been pretty clear, and in that context a portion of the transformational funding was put to science, around $9 million or so. The minister has also directed that the ERC reductions relative to stock assessment not happen. That's $6 million, so that's $15.5 million or something.

The minister also directed that the two new fisheries research vessels Commissioner Da Pont referred to will not be online soon, so the minister also directed we not pay off the Templeman, so that's effectively another $3 million to science. As well, a portion of the money out of the transformational funding that went to the coast guard helps address science and conservation and protection vessel availability.

In terms of the overall impact, I would say that under this minister there is clear direction to spend more on science in the order of magnitude of probably $20 million a year. At the moment that may mean new money coming into the department or it may mean reallocation internally within the department to ensure that's what occurs.

The additional complicating factor is the Laroque court decision, which has impacted on how we interact with the fishing industry in terms of how science is funded in joint projects with the industry, and there's a fair amount of analysis going on on that as we speak, Mr. Chair. The exact number is difficult to come up with, but I probably could do a better job than I've just done if you would like a more precise estimate. In other words, the year-over-year science funding number doesn't necessarily do justice to the amount of money that will be spent on science based on the minister's direction around ERC and so on, but I don't know.

Cal, do you want to add to that?

[Cal Hegge]

No, I think you've adequately dealt with it, except to point out we could provide what the deputy's alluded to, but we'd have to go back and put it together. We don't have the information readily available today.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Hegge.

Mr. Cuzner.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Murray, if you could walk me back, before I came to Ottawa, the government's response to Marshall--was that a special envelope of money, or would that have come out of the regular moneys for an integrated management plan?

[Larry Murray]

No, that was a special program. I can ask Mr. Bevan to give details, but funding was the result of a memorandum to cabinet dedicated to Marshall--

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Has that wound down now, Mr. Bevan?

[Larry Murray]

Why don't you run through the history of that, David, because it is quite relevant to some of the pressures at the moment.

[David Bevan]

The history of that is after the decision work was done to look at the response. We determined we would have to create the capacity to negotiate, to consult with first nations, to manage additional fisheries, and to provide fisheries access. An additional initial allotment was provided and then, after going back to government, a further allotment composed of operating money to allow us to have people who could consult with first nations and to allow us to operate fishery officers, etc., in those areas.

It provided money for capacity-building within the first nations in terms of things such as mentoring programs, etc., and it provided us with the opportunity to find retiring enterprises and then making those enterprises available to first nations as part of the agreements.

That money was there as a bridge to treaties. Originally the hope was that by the end of this fiscal year we'd be at that stage. Clearly we aren't, but the money does wind up at this point on April 1. So government will have to consider what to do about that particular issue. Clearly the work won't go away, and we aren't quite ready for the treaty process, so there's going to have to be some consideration of how to respond to that.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

I'm sure you're familiar with the situation in St. Peter's and the St. Peter's area. Whatever resolve we find in the St. Peter's area, would that come out of the integrated management plan? The Marshall stuff is long gone, is it?