Fisheries Committee on May 30th, 2006

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

On the breakdown of the funding, in Newfoundland and Labrador we receive, I think, 28%. Is that based on the number of harbours, or is it based on population? As a newcomer here, what exactly is that? How do you decide what the breakdown in funding is?

[Cal Hegge]

The breakout of funding is based on a formula. There are five criteria, and I'm sure if I try to go through them, I'll miss one or two. I don't know if Robert has them at his fingertips, but I have them in another document here if he doesn't.

[Robert Bergeron]

There are five criteria. The most important, which gets 50% of the weighting, is the replacement value of the core facilities in one region. The second most important variable is the fleet size--25% is attributed to fleet size. Then it's the total number of harbour authorities in the regions, for 10%. You have all the core harbours in the region, again with a weight of 10%, and finally, it's the total number of harbours in the region, for 5%.

So essentially, the most important variable, which to a large extent explains the 28% that Newfoundland and Labrador receives, is the replacement value of the core facilities in Newfoundland. Newfoundland and Labrador has 22% of the replacement value of all the core assets of small craft harbours, while the size of the fleet in Newfoundland is about 36%. So the combined effect gives about 28%.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Could I get a copy of that for my own purposes?

[A voice]

Sure. Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Okay?

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

I'm done. Thank you, Mr. Chair

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

There's one minute left, if you want to take a quick question. We're on a timeframe here, so go.

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

The revenue issue on these harbours is interesting. Just as an example, we have the Steveston Harbour Authority, which is a very successful harbour authority in British Columbia and is in my riding. They generate a fair amount of revenue and maintain the facility fairly well, but they can't afford the dredging to keep the harbour open. That's the case in Ladner harbour, also in my riding; it's also the case in the Annieville harbour, which is adjacent to my riding.

It's fine to talk about downloading responsibility to the harbour authorities, but if the department simply walks away from its obligation to keep those harbours open, it doesn't do a hell of a lot of good. I have instances and can document where vessels have had to wait until high tide to unload because the harbour is in dire need of dredging, and where ships and fishing vessels continually go aground, again because of lack of dredging.

What is the intention of the department to deal with that very critical issue?

[Robert Bergeron]

Annual dredging is a part of the maintenance and repair obligations of the program. It's considered on the same footing as any other urgent repairs. Actually, we do spend a fair amount of our budget each year on dredging to make sure that the facilities are operational. As with everything else, and this was mentioned earlier, we don't have enough money to do everything. We have to make choices. Sometimes dredging is postponed because we don't have enough funding to do it. If it's considered absolutely essential to maintain a harbour operation, this is usually the first priority at the start of the year.

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

I'll hold you to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Cummins.

Mr. Byrne.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Chair, we've got limited time left.

We'll start with the premise that DFO is indeed underfunded, specifically and especially from a capital point of view. DFO maintains very significant capital budgets, not only within small craft harbours but also within its fleet management system, informatics, and other things.

I have three very important questions. I'll try to make them brief, but I'll be very specific. I am asking about regional allocations. Has there been any change in regional allocation policy in recent years? Have you maintained adherence to your regional allocation policy in recent years, and has there been flow of capital budgets?

The first question pertains to regional allocations. Have you maintained and upheld your own policies on regional allocations, and have there been changes, or are changes currently being contemplated, to regional allocations?

Second, is there capital budget movement within DFO, specifically out of small craft harbours? For example, Parliament and this committee encourage the appropriation of specific funds for small craft harbours, but as we know, capital funds, once within a department, can flow if there is a situation in which fleet management requires an increase in capital appropriation. Has there been movement out of the small craft harbour envelope to other areas of the department? If so, has that money moved back in the spirit, quality, and quantity that was originally ascribed to the small craft harbours branch? We are not here to make subjective arguments as to what is more appropriate or what is higher priority. Parliament approves a particular appropriation based on an understanding, and this committee supports a particular appropriation for the small craft harbours branch; we'd like to know if that is being upheld.

My last question is on the role of Public Works. Public Works is a monopoly provider of engineering services to harbour authorities on all capital projects. Is there any proposal to allow harbour authorities to engage the services of independent private engineering firms to conduct engineering projects on their own capital projects within their own harbour authorities, as we do with municipal governments? Is the harbour authority--the independence and expertise and professionalism of the harbour authority--such that we would be prepared to engage in that and potentially get lower-cost solutions to harbour authority capital projects, and in the same instance create greater service value for money? As we know, Public Works has a limited budget; they have limited personnel and limited timeframes in which to conduct activities, and those factors sometimes limit or reduce the quality of service harbour authorities receive.

Those are three questions. If we don't have time to answer them today, I'd like to follow up on them, and I probably will within this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Actually, for our witnesses and committee members, I know this is an important issue and I know everyone would like to ask a number of questions. If you have a very short and succinct answer, we could hear that, or you could get back to the committee with the answers to those questions. The latter would probably be more appropriate, given our timeline today; we have three other members who would like to get questions, as well as a motion that's going to come up before the committee, so I'm going to try to move it along.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

I'd be happy with a written answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Okay.

[Cal Hegge]

Could I just seek clarification, Mr. Byrne? In the preamble you talked about the large capital budget the department has, but is your question specifically to small craft harbours, or...?

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

No, my question would be specific to small craft harbours. The main estimates outline the specific allocation for the small craft harbour branch and its projects; often capital flows mid-season into other capital projects, at the discretion of the deputy minister.

I am of the general opinion that the budget is normally maintained wholly, but that's not always the case.

[Cal Hegge]

Maybe I can give a quick general response. In fact, the small craft harbours program more often than not benefits from additional capital throughout the year, because with a large capital budget, as you can anticipate, there is often slippage in some of the major projects, and as we identify slippage throughout the year--and we monitor this very closely--small craft harbours is usually the first in line to be able say that because of the demand in the program itself, they can use additional capital.

I can pretty well guarantee to this committee that there is no slippage whatsoever away from the small craft harbours budget in the capital area. In fact, it's a beneficiary.

We will respond to your other points.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you very much.

We have Mr. Roy, Mr. Stoffer, and then Mr. Lunney, with a quick question, please.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Indeed, we can see that the Small Craft Harbours budget will decrease over the next few years.

The government has announced budget cuts for all the departments. Generally speaking, what would be the size of the cuts for your department over the next few years?

[Cal Hegge]

I cannot give you a precise answer at this time but I could send you the answer in a few days. I'd have to look at the Estimates. Some money would be allocated on the basis of Treasury Board submissions. It was different last year because of the situation of the government in general was different. We were operating with the warrants process and it was not a normal year. So, I will have to get the figures for this year and for last year and next year to be able to answer your question.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Will you send us your answer?

[Cal Hegge]

Absolutely.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you very much.