Fisheries Committee on Nov. 21st, 2006

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

So the plan is to get it down--

[Cal Hegge]

Those would be recreational and non-core harbours, for example.

[Larry Murray]

Part of this program that came into play a number of years ago, I think falling out program review, was to try to get to 750 core fishing harbours. There are also other harbours that aren't part of our program that come to us for funding--which in some cases have a fairly good story--but effectively we are trying to get to a core of 750 fishing harbours. The additions to that would be Nunavut, the impact of aquaculture, first nations and so on. But the bottom line that we're trying to get to is about 750 core fishing harbours properly funded and properly maintained.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

In regard to the divestiture program, I'm trying to see the dollars you've had in the past and what you would be looking at to fulfill the hope that you have to divest of these harbours. What would the figure be to be able to do that?

[Larry Murray]

We think with a figure of about $82 million we could successfully complete the divestiture in five years, and as I said in response to Monsieur Blais' question, we think there is a good business case for doing that in terms of long-term saving to Canadians.

Right now, because of the pressures on the program we can really allocate only about $1.5 million a year to the divestiture. If you work out the mathematics, we will successfully finish the divestiture in something around 65 years, which is a while. We think we need to do it more expeditiously. We find ourselves in the situation now where in some cases we are fundamentally looking after safety by fencing the recreational harbours that are no longer safe.

So it is a problem, but we think a properly funded divestiture program would solve the problem within five years.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

So let's say $85 million or so, give or take, would be the total cost of the divestiture.

Okay, that's all I have.

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

Okay, I'll start out. Could you just explain to us what A-base funding is?

[Cal Hegge]

A-base is what we essentially have in our reference levels that exist forever and a day. For example, the $99 million that the minister has spoken of before has been added to our A-base. That's going to stay in our reference levels. That's as opposed to funds that come in that have a sunset timeframe attached to them, whether it be two years or more. That's funding that will reduce over a period of time. It's sometimes referred to as B-base funding. In other words, it's there for a particular period, for a specific purpose. After the program has been delivered, that then comes out of our reference levels--which is why you see, for example, ups and downs with respect to our plans and priorities document.

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

So you refer to the main estimates, planned adjustments, and now supplementary estimates. Am I right in thinking that the supplementary estimates include the planned adjustments that were referred to in the RPP?

[Cal Hegge]

If I could just refer you again to page 7, you can see where we had our planned spending adjustments under the RPP, and in most cases, but not all, they have been picked up through the supplementary estimates and additional ones have been added.

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

So what happened to the ones that weren't? Did they not get spent? They're not part of what you planned to spend?

[Cal Hegge]

They didn't get spent and they obviously aren't going to be spent this year, so they may have been what we call re-profiled to a future year. As I look at the figures, though, there are only very small variations between what we put into the RPP and what we're actually asking for through supplementary estimates.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Kamp.

Thank you, Mr. Hegge.

As witnesses can see, there's a lot of interest in small craft harbours. It's a never-dying interest.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you.

On the divestiture program, that comes out of the $96 million, right?

[Larry Murray]

It would currently be funded out of the $96 million.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

About $16 million of that funding is for administrative work or work other than small craft harbour repair, which I think you indicated is about $80 million. Is that correct?

[Larry Murray]

We try to spend as much as we can on bricks and mortar and actually making a difference.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Of course.

The projected fund is for $96.6 million. But if the $20 million sunsets, that means it's $76 million instead of a $96 million if there's nothing added. Is that correct?

[Larry Murray]

That's correct.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Then with the $15 million, as Mr. Blais' motion and mine indicated, that would more or less give you the figure you need to accomplish what you need to accomplish over the next five years. Is that correct?

[Larry Murray]

That's correct if you assume that the $20 million doesn't sunset.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

That's right. It would only add $15 million.

[Larry Murray]

If the $20 million doesn't sunset, our estimate is that $35 million is the right number. We actually confuse ourselves by talking about $35 million, but it's $35 million with the $20 million in. In other words, if the program stays at $97 million, our estimate is--

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

You'd need another $40 million.

[Larry Murray]

I would say $35 million. We're throwing numbers around here and probably confusing ourselves as well.