Fisheries Committee on Nov. 21st, 2006

[Cal Hegge]

That would be the answer I would give as well. This has been an unusual year in that regard.

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

So just for this year, it's a bit of an anomaly. Okay, I'll accept that for now.

We're going to spend a little more than $1.7 billion this fiscal year, if I'm reading the figures. How does that compare to previous and future years, as you know it now? The question is, if we were to graph the amount of money that we're spending to meet our obligations to manage fisheries and oceans in Canada, are we spending more or less as time goes on?

[Cal Hegge]

The quick answer is that we are spending more money. Over time our budget has generally grown. For example, we have a chart here that shows, compared to other departments and the government as well, the 5%.... And again I'm talking mains over mains. In order to really give due justice to your question, we would have to look at what we actually spent last year, which is the information we don't have right now, vis-à-vis what we're planning to spend this year.

As an aside, you're quite right that what we're planning to spend this year is augmented by the supplementary estimates. There's also a second supplementary estimates, supplementary estimates B, which will likely increase our budget again, although not in a very significant way, compared to the supplementary estimates this time.

Our mains over mains, from 2005-06 and 2006-07, have increased by about 5%. We have a chart here that shows how we compared to other departments. I'm not sure that's terribly informative because of the different mandates, etc., but generally speaking, our budgets have tended to increase.

It's an in-and-out exercise, because as I alluded to earlier, some of our funding—for example, the Marshall funding, which Mr. Bevan spoke to—is coming out of our reference levels now, at least at the moment. We've talked about small craft harbours, so it could or will change from one year to another.

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

How does this compare to five or ten years ago?

[Cal Hegge]

I have a chart here going back to 1996 showing that with the exception of a slight dip from 1996-97 down to 1998-99, it's been steadily increasing.

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

I guess where I'm going is that we have the impression that this department, and maybe every department, is being sort of forced into reduction mode and looking for places to save money. I know there are exercises you go through to look for places to cut. I'm wondering what the truth is there. Do you have enough money to do the job that you need to do effectively, or are there continual pressures for you to find ways to cut corners?

[Larry Murray]

I'll kick that off, and others may want to leap in.

I think it depends on the department. When I was in defence, as I find here, it was more challenging because it was very capital-intensive and very operational. We're running a major fleet. I think the impact of inflation on acquisitions and on O and M in a large capital-intensive organization and the impacts of fuel costs and so on are more severe in a department such as this one than what I found when I was in Veterans Affairs. That's not to say that there aren't challenges there as well.

In order to have a look at the kind of chart Cal's doing, it would be interesting to take inflation out and look at some of those things. For large capital-intensive departments, it is more challenging, but do we do everything we could or should to cut administrative costs, and so on?

We've just gone through a major exercise for a couple of years, but this doesn't mean that we don't need to continue doing it. This a good and valid question. My own sense is that we need to have our feet kept to the fire as well. There will always be some healthy tension there, but at the moment we find ourselves fairly challenged around some of the programs, particularly those with a capital intensity, whether it's the coast guard, small craft harbours, or whatever.

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

Do we have that chart, by the way?

[Cal Hegge]

We can certainly get that to you.

[Larry Murray]

It's in a book, so we can get it for you, and we could actually have a bit of a look at it with inflation removed, maybe, and see what it looks like.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Mr. Matthews.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for coming.

I have just a couple of quick questions, and I apologize if I ask a question that someone else already raised while I was out for a few minutes.

This is a question for the commissioner. Your planned spending on the Canadian Coast Guard fleet renewal was $21 million, and your revised planned spending is $3.8 million, I believe, so you're going to spend a total of $24.8 million? Am I right on that, or have you revised downward?

[George Da Pont]

No. We are going to revise downward for it, the reason being that when we planned the spending, we expected to be on a bit of a faster track to replace the offshore science vessels that were reconfirmed, as I'm sure the committee's aware, in the last budget.

When the minister took office, a number of people from throughout the country raised with him the question of whether or not we were pursuing the right procurement strategy in getting those vessels, so we did take a pause. We reviewed all of the procurement options, and as a result we're a little behind schedule. So this year we won't spend all of the money we anticipated, but we obviously will be reprofiling that money and spending it in future years. We believe we can still get the first vessel around 2011, as we had planned originally.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Do you mind sharing with the committee what the perceived problems were with procurement?

[George Da Pont]

The problem with the procurement was whether or not we should be relying on a proven design for the science vessels or whether we should also be competing the design. That was the primary issue. After reviewing the options, we have maintained the proven design procurement process.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

So you anticipate the first vessel in 2011?

[George Da Pont]

Yes, that's what our planned expected date is.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

And that vessel will do what?

[George Da Pont]

It will replace one of the current science vessels. The vessel will do primarily scientific research.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

After that, when do you expect another?

[George Da Pont]

We hope it will be the year after.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Okay.

In aquaculture management, I see two figures: one $3.4 million and another $4.3 million, I believe. I'm wondering why there is a difference. My basic question is what the money is spent on. Is it on paying salaries in the department that does the aquaculture departmental stuff? Could someone explain that for me, please?

[David Bevan]

It's used predominantly for paying salaries. We have been looking at what we call A-basing the budget for aquaculture. We've been trying to stabilize it, because it's been a program that has, in the past, been funded through a number of temporary measures. It's now on a more stable footing. That money would then be spent for salaries. Their primary job is to work with the provinces and work with the industry to ensure that we have in place the right kind of approval process for new sites, and the right kind of program support for the regulatory elements of the program. It's small for that reason. It's focused on what has to be done in terms of the actual requirements the industry has to meet. It doesn't get into support programs, etc.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Do you anticipate that the department might, at a future time, get into some kind of a support program, with aquaculture taking on the role that it's taking because of our wild fish stocks being in trouble? Do you anticipate some role for the department in support measures, or are you going to leave that to other departments and agencies?

[David Bevan]

Clearly the department has recently been involved in support. If you look at the announcement regarding Cooke Aquaculture's move into the south coast of Newfoundland, you'll see that there were some contributions from this department and other departments to help facilitate that.

We have been in consultations with the provinces regarding what might be included in an aquaculture framework agreement to help streamline the regulatory process in Canada. We have to try to remove some of the red tape that is preventing the aquaculture industry from expanding as it needs to in terms of sites and particular support programs that will help the industry. We have had those discussions, but the final decision has not yet been made.