Fisheries Committee on May 1st, 2007

[Larry Murray]

Maybe I'll begin the answer, and then I'll ask Mr. Da Pont to carry on.

I guess I'd just like to say that certainly the captain in question is a very distinguished employee of the coast guard, and certainly we value the input from the coast guard alumni.

All of that being said, as the minister said last week, this decision was made for operational reasons. It was made for reasons related to saving money on infrastructure in order to spend money at the sharp end. In terms of the people involved, a five-year plan was put in place to look after the interests of all the people involved, including term employees. It was not made for political reasons, as the minister indicated. He was responding to a recommendation from the department and from the coast guard.

With that by way of background, I'll ask Mr. Da Pont to carry on.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Murray.

First of all, I do want to say that I also have tremendous respect for Captain Klebert. In fact, I met with Captain Klebert. I met with all of the commanding officers of the two vessels to explain the move personally, and I met with the crews as well. The half-million-dollar figure that I talked about at the last session was the extra cost involved in providing for crewing to continue out of Halifax for the five-year transition period. Regarding our total cost, our expectation--and we have done soundings on this and we have had a report again from another of our best captains, the captain of theHenry Larsen on Argentia--is that we will not incur any dredging costs there. In Argentia there will be a $30,000 per year fee for using the port.

As for the crew relocation costs, I don't think we can determine those without having some significant discussions with the crew. That's one of the reasons we staggered this move over a two-year period, before it even starts, and made the commitment to do the crewing out of Halifax for a five-year period. We want to be able to sit down with each crew member and assess with them how they would like to proceed. We have given people the commitment that there will be no job loss for any individual. We've also given them the commitment that no one will be forced to move. Over that five-year period, some people will choose to retire, as in the normal course of events. Some people will choose to move to other vessels in the maritime region, and some people may choose ultimately at the end of the period to relocate. They obviously have an entitlement to do that. Aside from dealing with the people issues in this, which we've tried to handle, I think, in the most responsible way possible, we're not anticipating any significant expenditures from the move in terms of infrastructure or other issues, which was the main reason for having made the change.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

If I'm not mistaken, a review of this nature back in 1997 indicated at that time that it would not be a good thing to do, and that's why the Larsen, if I'm not mistaken, was sent up to St. John's. So I'd like to know what changed.

Also, because Mr. Klebert is my constituent, I'm asking this question as a request to you that in no way, shape, or form will he face any disciplinary action regarding his openness. I say that because many people of the coast guard have called me and they're worried about this man's future in the coast guard. I just want your assurances that he won't be disciplined or reprimanded in any way.

[Larry Murray]

I'll hand off to Mr. Da Pont in a minute.

The last question is not a question we can answer here. It's a privacy issue between the department, the coast guard, and Captain Klebert. It's not an issue--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

We're going to leave it there. Mr. Stoffer's time is up. He can continue it on his next round if he wishes.

Mr. Cuzner.

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

Thank you very much.

I'll finish up with the line of questioning that my colleague Mr. Stoffer was pursuing. On the transfer of these ships, these assets, after the release of the initial draft business plan, with no indication there, give us the rationale that prompted this fairly significant departure in business as usual at coast guard.

[Commr George Da Pont]

Mr. Chairman, we've had several draft versions of the business plan. We've been using that as a document to consult with clients, stakeholders, and others before finalizing the plan. We did not include it in those drafts because the announcement had not yet been made. We were respecting that, just as, for example, coming out of the last budget we did not include any more detail on the procurement of new vessels other than what was in the actual budget documents pending the announcements. That was really simply the reason. It will obviously be in our final version, but we were respecting the protocol around announcements.

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

Just to switch gears, I have three almost unrelated questions.

Could I get some clarification on the salmon enhancement program? The line item is $29 million. Mr. Bevan, could you elaborate on that? Is that primarily west coast salmon?

[David Bevan, Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

The $29 million is for the salmon enhancement program on the west coast.

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

So the Atlantic salmon endowment fund was for all intents and purposes a one-time $30 million allocation to be managed at arm's length. However, with the enhancement fund on the west coast, there was an initial endowment and then there's $30 million annually.

[David Bevan]

No. There was an initial endowment on the west coast for a fund that's similar to the east coast program. However, there is a separate program, which at one point was much larger, that is now being stably funded at $29 million a year. That program runs various hatcheries on the west coast. It is now being reviewed with a view to determining what role it can play in the wild pacific salmon policy.

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

Is there a departure in the national policy...? We can fund and support the hatcheries on the west coast, yet we have walked away from the hatcheries on the Atlantic coast. Is there a discrepancy in the approach?

[David Bevan]

Certainly the programs are much larger on the west coast than they ever were on the east coast. Both sets of programs were reduced under program review. The salmon enhancement program on the west coast is now a little over 50% of its previous high level. There has been a cut in both, but the program on the west coast is much larger and obviously is funded at a higher level.

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

Yes. There's no core funding on the Atlantic coast, is there?

[David Bevan]

There's money being spent by the department in hatcheries on the Atlantic coast, but not on the same scale, and certainly not through a program that's A-based the way it is on the west coast.

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

Is there any kind of rationale for that? Can you throw me a line here?

[David Bevan]

On the west coast there are a number of coastal communities and industry groups that are reliant on the salmon. The enhanced salmon do provide fishing opportunities ranging from Prince Rupert down to the south coast and--

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

I apologize for interrupting you, but is it that the salmon industry--more so in the maritime provinces--is more recreational as opposed to commercial?

[David Bevan]

That's correct.

On the west coast we have a commercial element that doesn't exist any more on the Atlantic coast. We have on both coasts, of course, aboriginal and recreational fishing; it's just that the scale is much larger in British Columbia. The value for coastal communities is reliant on salmon in many cases, where it's not in Atlantic Canada. That's the reason for the funding of the salmon enhancement program in British Columbia.

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

Thank you.

The next disjointed question is with regard to Larocque and the review of the Larocque decision. Can we get an update on that and the perceived costing on that?

[Larry Murray]

I'll start, Mr. Chair, and then ask Mr. Bevan or Dr. Watson-Wright to leap into the fray.

Basically, the department has done an awful lot of analysis on that. We have a policy framework that we will be taking to industry and will be bringing to this committee. I think next week is the plan to bring forward the policy framework.

It's complicated; it's challenging. And as part of the money in the budget we did get some additional funds to enable us to deal with at least the science elements of some of the arrangements that existed before the Larocque decision and a subsequent decision similar to Larocque in Quebec. I think the funding in the budget is in the order of $10 million in the first year and $12 million in subsequent years.

That's obviously a work in progress. It's fairly challenging, and we have tried to make fair and reasonable decisions while putting together a policy framework, since the fishery, as every member on this committee knows, is ongoing. We've tried to deal with the issue since the decision in an appropriate way. I think half or so of the session next week is dedicated to this subject and it is a subject of great importance. We welcome the committee's interest.

[David Bevan]

We reviewed this, and there are about 170 fisheries that had some kind of use of fish involvement, and that would include everything from test fisheries on the west coast for salmon, to sentinel fisheries, to arrangements that were used to fund science and other activities. We've set up a policy to review all of those 170 fisheries relevant to the budget that we received. We are making allocation decisions based on conservation coming first and what's in the greater public good. If it ends up being something that is supporting an individual benefit, or a benefit to individual groups of fishermen, then those become lower down on the priority list.

We'll be going out to consult with the fishing industry on the policy that surrounds these decisions to ensure they have input and understand what is in place. We have had to make decisions, though, as we've opened up fisheries throughout the country relevant to what gets funded and what doesn't get funded using this policy. It's not the ideal, where you usually take time to develop it in consultation with industry. We had to come up with a tool to use in making decisions on how to allocate the money and how to be fair to fishing interests. We'll take that out, and these decisions can be reviewed once we've had input from the industry.

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

We are hearing from the industry, and the number they are floating is about $27 million. There's a significant gap between what we're hearing in the industry. I understand fully there has to be a framework from which this thing flows.

[Larry Murray]

If I can add, the science side of it is $10 million to $12 million, but when we looked at all the arrangements that exist out there, I think around $23 million would be the number we could find. We could try to explain that to the committee next week.

Wendy, do you want to say anything on this one?

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright, Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

I think you've pretty well answered most of it now. What Mr. Bevan has said about the principles for how we go forward and consult with the industry is the important thing. But in terms of the actual numbers, the deputy is correct, the science portion we were able to analyze down to around $12 million, and the others were of a different category.