It was a Freudian slip. We'll pledge our support to you in any way we can, in order to provide any additional information you might want throughout the conduct of your study.
If I could go quickly to slide 2, there you see the budget represented, and we've tried to take out some of the mystery, in terms of what is the actual budget figure. So you'll see that the actual budget, which is the first figure there for 2007-08, is roughly $96.8 million. The higher figure results from adding in the enablers. We attribute the internal services, if you will, right across the program areas, but the more relevant figure is the $96.8 million.
On slide 3 we talk about some of the key program issues. This is not an exhaustive list, as you know, but in terms of our priorities, we tried to establish them on this slide. We all know that additional funding is required to maintain our core harbours. That's been a subject of considerable discussion at this committee in the past.
Our harbour authorities, whom we could not do without, have made representation to this committee recently, and you know that as good as they are, they are suffering from a bit of fatigue in some of the program challenges.
We also have a number of non-core or inactive fishing harbours, recreational harbours, that we are trying to divest. That continues to be a priority of the program.
And last but not least, this committee is familiar with a public report arguing for the creation of seven harbours in Nunavut.
On slide 4, we put forward a vision, if you will. Every organization should have a vision, so this is our attempt at a vision for the program, which I don't think will surprise you. We are looking to create a national network of harbours, obviously in good working condition. We think that the operation of these harbours through the harbour authorities is the most cost-effective way to do this.
Ultimately, we hope that the funding will be secured and the harbours improved, to the extent that the harbour authorities can generate more revenue and take more ownership, or responsibility, I should say, for the maintenance of the harbours.
Moving to slide 5, where we talk about the maintenance of the core harbours, again the information on this slide is quite familiar to you. We've actually done a considerable study on the state of the core harbours, and we've updated the study results, both in 2004 and 2006. The bottom line is that based on this analysis, there is still a shortfall this year of $32 million, and that will go up to $35 million next year, when the $3 million of the transformational plan funding drops off.
With respect to harbour authorities, we would like to strengthen the harbour authority model. We think this is the way to go. It has proven to be an effective and quite responsible way to operate the core harbours. We are concerned, as they are, about the long-term sustainability of the harbour authority model, the low turnover of some of the harbour authorities, and the fatigue factor.
On slide 6, we acknowledge that if we could improve the harbour conditions, which we are working to do, it would put the harbour authorities in a better state to generate additional revenue and contribute more to the maintenance of the harbours. But until that happens, obviously we're not going to walk away from our responsibilities.
I might add that we have an excellent relationship with the harbour authorities. I think they made that point when they were in front of this committee. I have personally attended several regional harbour authority conferences over the last year, and through these mechanisms and means we try to provide additional training and respond to the harbour authority concerns. So the relationship continues to be very positive, not to understate the issues of fatigue, and so on.
Moving on to divestiture, which is on slide 8, I think the committee is aware that we have a little over 350 harbours that we still need to divest. That program is really dependent on additional funding. Right now, we're only able to divert about $1.5 million out of our annual budget to divest of those harbours, which means we're divesting roughly 15 to 25 harbours per year.
As you are aware, we have tabled to the committee the figure of $82 million in the past, which is our estimate of what we would need over five years to divest of the remaining harbours. The timeframe within which we could divest those harbours, if we had the money, would likely extend over a period greater than five years.
Moving on to the Nunavut harbours, as I think the committee is aware—in fact, you were provided with a copy of the report, which argues for the creation of seven small craft harbours in Nunavut—there are no harbours up there at the moment.
On the next slide you'll see that while that would be within the mandate of the small craft harbours program, given the budget shortfalls that we are faced with, we would need an additional $40 million, roughly, with some ongoing maintenance funding to do that. Those figures are based on the 2004 estimate.
Finally, with respect to internal management of the program, we are working towards making sure that our resources are distributed equitably across the country to each of the regions. We have been working very closely with the Department of Public Works with respect to reducing engineering costs and project management fees. We can elaborate on that, if the committee wishes, during the question period.
As I believe you heard me state, we are going to be looking at the allocation methodology that we use, over the next few months. I believe we've invited this committee, at your suggestion, to participate in that review.
On slide 13, we make reference to our function review, which I think you've heard us speak of before. This is a study that's under way that we hope to conclude this year, at least in terms of the recommendations, which will put the program on the most cost-effective and efficient delivery that we can within the department.
Finally, we have attached several annexes, which I won't speak to. It's essentially information with respect to the distribution of the harbours and a report on the rationalization of the non-core harbours. You can see the figure of 447 there, broken down—the 447 representing the non-core harbours that are reflected on the first annex. In annex D, we have the regional breakdown of this current fiscal year's base budget.
That's a fairly quick run-through of the deck, but as I said earlier, I think most of the information is generally familiar to the committee members. I and my colleagues would be quite pleased to do our best in answering your questions.