Fisheries Committee on May 1st, 2008

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you.

The report on plans and priorities has identified species at risk. Obviously, we're dealing with species at risk. We've talked about this before at this committee, and I know we've talked a little bit about some of the reports that have come up there.

My recollection is.... I think it was about 13 out of 40 or something like that the last time we spoke. There had actually been recovery strategy for 13 out of the 40 species at risk. Is there an increased number of species at risk? Are we still dealing with 40, and where are we insofar as recovery strategies? Are we still at 13?

[Michelle d'Auray]

I was going to turn to Madame Breton for the responses to those questions.

[Mimi Breton, Assistant Deputy Minister, Oceans and Habitat Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

With pleasure.

In terms of aquatic species, there are actually 120 species that are at different stages and an extra 36 that are pre-COSEWIC. So it's an increasing workload.

You are asking whether we are progressing and if we are doing things differently to increase progress. I'm happy to report that with the resources we have in SARA, we built the monitoring system, we built

a leadership system for each region to ensure that each species is monitored as part of the process. We have put in place measures to monitor progress. Of course, because some species are more complex than others, additional consultation is required, but I can tell you that we did take into consideration the Auditor General's comments. Rather than simply coordinating activities, we are in the process of structuring the system in a manner that resembles a program so that responsibilities are clearly identified.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Do you think there is sufficient funding now to take care of the problem?

[Mimi Breton]

As I said, it's an increasing burden, because there are always new species being listed. Also, at different stages of the process you need different expertise. At one stage it would be science. At another stage it would be enforcement. So we need to look at how we allocate resources to keep that flexibility so we can put the effort where it's needed.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Okay, good.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Mr. Chair, what I would add, if I may, is that as we're finding approaches, as we get better at developing recovery strategies, at understanding how we need to build in the science, and at understanding the economic impacts, I wouldn't say that is becoming easier. But at least we have a better context in which we can start applying these across the country, rather than having to reinvent the wheel in terms of approaches and methodologies every time. We are learning quite extensively from the approaches we have taken to date. And we are now able to put in place a more consistent approach across the country, which will enable us, to the extent we can, to accelerate on the methodology.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thanks.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

You have two and a half minutes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Oh, good, there is lots of time.

My last question deals with Bill S-215. I'm sure the department is aware of Bill S-215. We heard testimony, obviously, about the potential impacts on the budget, and there is a lot of speculation as to what that will be. I understand that nobody can nail that down, because we won't know. Given the timeline, should the bill receive royal assent, and given that we know that there is a scheduled, clockwork type of progression through the process of the bill to designate lighthouses as heritage lighthouses, what plans has the department made at this point in anticipation of that bill coming to pass, which it looks like it will?

[Michelle d'Auray]

Thank you for the question.

Yes, we are aware of Bill S-215. I believe that a number of our colleagues have appeared before the committee and have provided quite a bit of information.

I believe that with the amendments that were proposed we are in a better position to also transition once the bill is put in place. There are some timelines that will enable us to get ready for the discussion and analysis that needs to be undertaken. Part of that will also depend, I would suggest, on the number of lighthouses that are brought forward and on the interest. There is a fairly consistent process we will be going into and discussing with a number of potential hosts of some of these lighthouses, for divestiture purposes. We will be taking, I would say, a pretty in-depth look at and analysis of the financial implications and the ways in which we would be working with them. But we have not necessarily, at this moment, done any financial analysis.

Mr. Hegge, would you like to add anything to that? No. Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

Mr. Russell.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question has to do with small craft harbours. The total budget is $108.6 million, but the planned spending is $93.5 million. The discrepancy is about $15 million. The $15 million is to deal with enablers—executive direction, strategic policy, and all that kind of stuff. So really, what's going into maintenance and recapitalization and that kind of thing is $93.5 million. Is that right?

[Michelle d'Auray]

That's correct.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

That falls short of what the committee had recommended, I believe, which was a minimum of $114 million.

Have any harbours and ports been added to small craft harbours over the last two or three years?

[Michelle d'Auray]

As Mr. Hegge mentioned, the only element that we are considering is the Digby harbour. And the budget, as the 2008 budget indicated, has funding or proposed funding for a harbour in Nunavut.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I raise this because there have been outstanding requests from at least three harbours in my riding—Mary's Harbour, Pincent's Arm, Williams Harbour. Some that were on the schedule came off and they want to be back on. They meet the criteria. So that's an outstanding request that we're going to continue to push with the department.

Is it basically just the minister's recommendation? If the minister says to do it, it shall be done--is that the way it is?

[Michelle d'Auray]

There are some criteria and there are also some issues around whether or not we have the funding capacity to take these on. There are a number of harbours, as the committee is well aware, that have some challenges—if I can put it that way. The idea of adding more to our responsibilities without the necessary funds would require us to increase our priority-setting challenges.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

On that logic, then, you wouldn't want to add any more harbours until you got more money. The only reason we're going to get harbours added is if we put more money in, and that's up to the minister to do.

I want to move on to the icebreakers, or the coast guard. I have some concerns about some $20 million coming out of operations and going into the capital side of the ledger, given some of the challenges that we face.

Would the ideal situation be not to shift money within the budget itself, but to have that money for operations and extra capital undertakings? It's nice to have the boats refitted, but you have to have the operational money to run things efficiently. We're talking about personnel, and we're talking about making sure you can maintain a certain level to meet performance indicators. Would that be the ideal situation?

[George Da Pont]

I don't see it as taking money out of operating. Yes, we are changing money from one boat to another, but that money has always been used on refit and will continue to be used on refit. All we're doing is consolidating the money that we have been spending on refit. We have added to the refit budget from the major capital side, not from the operating side. We have increased the refit budget.

I think it's crucial. Given the age profile of the larger vessels, they require more maintenance now than they did eight or ten years ago. This trend will continue until we get some of the new vessels that the last three budgets have provided for.

I see it simply as consolidating expenditures, not reducing money that we otherwise would have been spending on other parts of our programs.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I was very disappointed to see the cancellation of the northern access initiative, which was announced in November of 2005. Do you have either a home port or a coast guard base above the 52nd parallel in the north? I say this because so much emphasis is now being put on the north, seabed mapping, and Arctic sovereignty. All these types of buzzwords are being thrown out by the government.

Is there any permanent coast guard base above the 52nd parallel?

[George Da Pont]

Mr. Chairman, I would have to refresh my geography. Our most northern base is Prince Rupert, which I think is relatively close to the 52nd parallel. I don't know if it's below or above.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

So there's nothing on the east coast.

[George Da Pont]

On the east coast, obviously St. John's would be the most northerly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Russell.

Mr. Blais.