Fisheries Committee on May 6th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Good morning.

Now that we're all assembled, I want to welcome the minister and his staff back again.

Some of your staff are becoming quite regular here, Mr. Minister. It's always good. It shows a great interest in our committee and the work we do, working cooperatively with the department to get things done.

As usual, we'll give the minister an opportunity to make some opening remarks, and then we'll open the floor for questions.

I want to thank the minister for taking the time to be here for the two-hour session. Some committee members really wanted to have you here for two hours, so we're delighted you managed to be able to do that.

With that, the floor is yours.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone. Bonjour, mes amis.

Certainly we're pleased to be back. I'm glad you mentioned the staff. You've had them here more often than you've had me.

When I hear some of my colleagues talk about their experiences before committee, and certainly their officials, quite often coming to a committee can be pretty onerous. Our department has always felt very comfortable coming here. We try to give you what information we can, or provide it to you. I must say that all of us have been treated in the type of manner you would expect from a group like this. I've been part of it for a number of years. It helps to get the job done, so I thank you for that.

With me today are some familiar faces: Claire Dansereau, my department's associate deputy minister; George Da Pont, commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard; Cal Hegge, the assistant deputy minister of human resources and corporate services; and of course, no stranger to you at all, David Bevan, my ADM of fisheries and aquaculture management.

I've know you've met them several times regarding main estimates for this year's budget. I trust the discussions were helpful to you.

Today I'd like to begin by taking a step back from the details of the main estimates to provide a broader perspective of the financial picture over the past couple of years, which will hopefully give us a bit of a background for discussion. Following that, I'd like to discuss matters of collaborative arrangements between fish harvesters and the department, and I will finish up by making a statement about the coast guard.

I'm proud of the investments we've made to support Canada's fisheries and better manage our oceans. Since 2006, and leading up to this year's federal budget, our government has committed about $860 million to help Canada's fishing communities. We've increased DFO's budget by just under $100 million a year in permanent funding. We have introduced, and then improved, the first capital gains tax relief for our fish harvesters. All of you are the beneficiaries of that, because I'm sure you take credit for it. We financed the health of the oceans initiative for cleaner waters. We've reinvested in science and funded integrated commercial fishery plans on both coasts. We've put funding in place to renew the coast guard fleet, and we have improved habitat conservation and protection. And we have stepped up fisheries enforcement.

Bill C-32, a modernized fisheries act, will soon be at second reading in the House of Commons. I hope I can count on your cooperation to move it into committee, where you can do whatever work you want. There was some talk about us perhaps trying to limit the committee. I assure you that once it's in your hands, you will be the masters of it. There will be no interference from us whatsoever.

This extremely important piece of legislation follows extensive discussions over the past several years, with provinces, territories, as well as fishing interests, aboriginal groups, stakeholders, and others. Since tabling Bill C-45 in December 2006, people have had access to the bill. We have held numerous meetings with stakeholders to explain the content of the proposed legislation. As a result, almost 400 people and organizations provided us with feedback and suggested changes to the text. We listened. Where there was general agreement, we took action and modified the text. A lot of the major changes were your own suggestions on clarification and others. In terms of suggestions where there was no agreement, we will need to discuss that at committee stage.

I truly hope I can count on your support and cooperation during the committee stage to make this the best bill possible. I know from my own experience that the committee can do excellent work on this bill, just as it did on Bill S-215, an act to protect heritage lighthouses.

In terms of the bill, I say do your deliberations and make whatever changes are necessary. We want the best bill possible. And if we can't deliver that, we have a chance to vote for it in the House. Are we going to get perfection? Probably not; you never will. Is it better than what we have and as good as we can get under the circumstances? If it is, we should pass it. If it's not, then I'll live by your decision.

Together we can modernize this legislation, for industry, stakeholders, and Canadians. I call on all of you, in your duty as parliamentarians, to do just that.

This past February, with economic uncertainty around the world, we called for a prudent federal budget. We still found room to make key investments in Canada's fisheries. We committed $22 million over the first two years to help develop a more competitive and sustainable aquaculture sector. We have $70 million over five years, which has been accepted very positively by the aquaculture industry and the provinces involved. We devoted $10 million over two years to help fix up harbours. This is for community ownership. As you know, there was a commitment of $45 million to do that, so we can divest ourselves of harbours that are eating up the money you need to spend on your own wharves and breakwaters, etc.

Our government has also committed $8 million over the next two years to build a commercial harbour in Nunavut, one of several needed if we're going to see Nunavut benefit from its resources. It's going to be expensive, but it's needed in order for them to properly manage the resource and benefit from it.

The budget also set aside $720 million for a new polar class icebreaker. That's on top of the $750 million last year for a number of coast guard midshore patrol vessels. This vessel will have a far greater capability than the one it's replacing, by the way. As well as icebreaking, it will support a range of DFO programs and services like fisheries management activities, fishery science, and it will also help maintain Canada's presence in the north.

The government also devoted $20 million over the next two years to complete required mapping of the Arctic and Atlantic seabeds. This is a sovereignty issue, and it supports our claims to the outer limits of Canada's continental shelf. This funding is not from our department exclusively, but it will certainly help us manage, protect, and develop northern fisheries, while helping Canada stake its rightful claim to our northern continental shelf.

As I mentioned, my second topic concerns the matter of collaborative arrangements between fish harvesters and the department regarding the use of fish. You recently received my department's response to your follow-up questions on collaborative arrangements. You will recall the Larocque and APPFA decisions made in 2006. The issue was whether collaborative arrangements put in place years ago fit with legal decisions made in the Federal Court in these cases. In the wake of that, a number of agreements we had, arrangements we had with the fishing industry, were struck down.

In all, we have reviewed 206 activities and projects that could have been impacted by court decisions. In 2006, 68 out of the 206 agreements we have with different groups involved use of fish agreements in exchange for scientific or fisheries management activities; 138 did not. We reported this to you in February. You have asked for more detail and it's in our response.

To recap, all but two of the 68 arrangements have continued in a modified form that is consistent with the Federal Court decision. We have returned most allocations that were previously used to form joint projects to the total allowable catch. We've just put them back in the common pool. Thirteen allocations have remained with the fishing industry association or a community, but now they do not require help in the department with fish management or science. Eleven did not have a use of fish component, while the two that did no longer have an obligation to fund DFO activities.

I have always believed that the fish quota should go to fish harvesters, but in the past, special allocations were provided to some community groups. We are also continuing to review these allocations to make sure they are in line with court decisions.

The bottom line is that we're still gathering the data needed to run the fishery. This is thanks to an increase in our budget of $12 million per year until 2012 and to using the industry resources in a manner that complies with the court. Also, by reducing costs we're focusing on essential conservation information and exploring non-financial options for staying the course.

I'm satisfied these measures are minimizing the impact on my department's programs and services as well as on Canada's fish harvesters.

As I mentioned, to wrap things up, I'd like to say a few words about the coast guard.

We're well aware of the tragedy at sea that took the lives of four sealers—Bruno Bourque, Gilles Leblanc, Marc-André Déraspe, and Carl Aucoin—aboard l'Acadien II in March. This is a loss of the deepest order for their families, the community of the Magdalen Islands, and all of Canada.

I know that one of our colleagues, Monsieur Blais, was very, very close to that. We spoke often during that terrible tragedy, and he certainly did yeoman service for his people in that regard.

In the days following the incident, we sent an official from coast guard to the Magdalen Islands to provide support and information to the grieving families when the bodies of their loved ones were returned home.

I grew up in a fishing village, as did a lot of you. While Renews was a lot smaller than the Magdalen Islands, when we have a tragedy at sea, as we've all had—especially in places like the one Bill Matthews represents, and maybe more so than anywhere—we know what it's like and what effect it has, not only on the community but also on the whole area.

In circumstances like these, people want answers and they want them quickly. As you know, the coast guard is carrying out an internal incident safety review. That review is being led by an independent investigator, retired Rear Admiral Roger Girouard. I've met him, by the way, and I would think he is as fine a person as ever I've met. He certainly knows what has to be done, how to do it, and I have every belief he will do it well. His team will, of course, be cooperating with the RCMP and the Transportation Safety Board, which are also reviewing the matter. We want these investigations to be quick, but we also need to be thorough, so that when all the facts are clear we can proceed accordingly.

We have remarkable people in our coast guard, people who have dedicated themselves to serving others and who don't hesitate to put themselves in harm's way to save another. So this tragedy weighs heavily on their minds, too, I can assure you. Day in and day out, the coast guard does an awful lot of work for Canada. This, too, is worth noting. Even during these difficult times, our work continues. It is still our coast guard, and we are fortunate as Canadians to have it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I believe Mr. MacAulay is going to start our questions this morning.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Minister and staff. It's good to have you here again.

First, I'd like to congratulate you on the arrest of the Farley Mowat and the move you made there. It's appreciated.

Now looking at saving the fish, I've asked you before about whether the Julianne III, a 5,000-horsepower vessel, a football field or so wide and a quarter of a mile long, will be allowed to fish herring in the gulf. With a net a quarter of a mile long and a football field or so wide, it's able to catch herring and anything else from a minnow to a whale. I hope you've reconsidered this; I hope you are not looking at it the way you have previously and you will not allow this vessel to fish in the gulf this year.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you for the question and your comments on the Farley Mowat.

One of the interesting things about the sealing exercise—I include Paul Watson and his group on the Farley Mowat—was the solid support from everybody. It wasn't a petty political thing. It was something Canada had to do, should do. Regardless of who was there, it was something that should be done, and I certainly appreciate the support.

In relation to the herring, my own impression is that the Julianne III is not part of the equation this year and will not be part of the equation. I'll ask David Bevan to correct me on this if I'm wrong. We have asked the FRCC to have a look at herring. Herring is the fish that has given me more trouble than anything else. A lot of it is because of the ups and downs, the downturn right now, in the spring stock. The fall stock seems to be half decent. There are concerns about having enough for bait, and the cost of bait has certainly exacerbated the problem.

Fishermen are concerned about the herring stocks because they're so important to them. Yet when we fish it commercially, we get very little return compared with what others are getting in other parts of the country. So the whole thing leads to the need for a hard look. We need to maximize the philosophy that we've adopted with the provinces and the fishing groups—to get every cent we can out of the herring and fish it in ways that will keep jobs going and benefit the people.

We've always had a defined quota from the inshore, the gillnetters, and the seiners. But the poor old seiners have been banished everywhere. It's not for me to judge whether this is right or not, but they have no place to go at all. That makes it very difficult. And yet they have a quota.

I assure you that we will monitor it, so that whatever happens there will have no adverse effect on other fishermen—seiners, trawlers, border trawlers, or whatever. But they only have a quota. They only have so much. Whether they have three football fields or ten football fields, they can only catch what they have.

David, do you have an update on the Julianne III?

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

No, but I think it's important to recognize that there are a large number of gillnetters. If you add up the total legal number of nets, they would stretch hundreds of nautical miles. That's the fishing power on one side. We have only a few seiners on the other side, and they have a quota that they are unable to catch, due to the restrictions placed on them. I think you have to look at this in a balanced way. Consider that the quotas are caught, that there is monitoring to ensure that the bycatches are controlled, and that there are not adverse impacts on other species.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. MacAulay, for your generous contribution.

Mr. Byrne.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister and gentlemen, back in December the committee produced an interim report to the House regarding the small craft harbours program. It was intended to provide evidence of the need for over $1 billion, potentially, in additional support for the small craft harbours program. We didn't get it. Instead of the $1 billion, we got $10 million, which is going to be directed at tearing down certain harbours.

You still have certain amounts of money. There was a project that was listed on the Government of Canada website on December 2, 2007, pertaining to Nipper's Harbour on the northeast coast of Newfoundland. The Government of Canada website said that the project is scheduled to be carried out during the spring and summer of 2008. That's information directly from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, posted on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency website.

We haven't received any announcement on that as yet. You wrote to the harbour authority last year, Minister, saying that you would be prioritizing it and that the project would occur when funds became available. We've heard direct testimony from your assistant deputy minister and deputy minister that the projects for small craft harbours for this year are basically approved. The entire allotment has gone to your desk and it's waiting for announcement.

We need to get this project, and several others like it, out the door so that we don't miss the construction season, which has a narrow window in Newfoundland and Labrador. We need to get the public tenders completed and equipment mobilized. If you don't announce the project and others like it, it probably will not occur.

Can you tell this committee, the people at Nipper's Harbour, and citizens in communities throughout Atlantic Canada, Quebec, and other areas that depend on small craft harbours when you are going to be completing the round of small craft harbours announcements for this year?

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Chair, again I thank Mr. Byrne for the question. Certainly it's one that has always been before the committee. The first day I sat on the committee it was the first issue we raised, and as a result of that committee, as I mentioned before, with the hearings and with pressures, the government of the day committed an extra $100 million over five years, $20 million a year. That ran out. Last year we made that permanent funding, not an extension of another two or three years, but permanent funding, adding $20 million to the base budget. On top of that we added an extra $11 million. So we have put $31 million a year into new funding. This year we've brought in $45 million over five years to deal with divestitures--because it's like interest on a credit card, soaking away our money--repairing and maintaining, trying to get rid of facilities we no longer need or want.

So we have a few more dollars to use. However, you can argue quite correctly that an extra 20% or 30% or 40%, or whatever we might have today...probably the cost of operating today compared to three or four years ago evens it out. So we're not making a lot more headway than we did. We're keeping our head above water.

Your own comments about the amount of money needed to really bring--if we're going to have very good facilities everywhere.... With the change in fishery, where we're seeing aquaculture becoming pretty important and requiring more facilities or more use of facilities, people going to larger boats, and a return of some of our groundfish stocks, we're seeing more activity than in the past, and we're seeing the shift from smaller communities to larger ones quite often, all requiring new money.

You mentioned Nipper's Harbour as a priority. We have many priorities out there, all equal, and we try to do what we can with what money we have.

Anything that goes on the website, unless it has been approved and okayed through the regular process and through the minister's office, is only a matter of many other jobs we have to do. Nothing is approved until it is approved by the minister, whoever he or she happens to be.

In light of that, when they tell you it's on the minister's desk...anything that comes on my desk doesn't stay there very long. Going to the minister's office is entirely different because that means final scrutiny and a number of levels of checks to make sure everything is in order. It's not something that's done down at the small craft harbours office in St. John's and sent up for signing. It becomes part of the total Canadian picture, the total Canadian budget, and then you go through your advisers, etc. We try to do it quickly, and we are very close.

I agree with you, the quicker we get those things out the door.... Quite often the announcements were made in mid-summer, but our announcements will be made long before mid-summer, and as quickly as I can make them. I won't give you a timeframe, but I will say certainly days rather than weeks or months.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Byrne.

Mr. Blais.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, witnesses.

I would first like to thank you for your comments on the tragedy that occurred off the Magdalen Islands. However, I would like to hear your response to a question that I had the opportunity to put to some of your department's senior officials a few days ago.

As a minister, what is your commitment with respect to the events that led to the recent tragedy experienced by the people of the Magdalen Islands at the end of March?

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Blais.

I wonder if you would just give me the first...I missed the translation. I could pick up the French, but I couldn't hear it, and by the time I got the translation.... I just missed the first couple of words you said.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

I was simply saying that I was asking you the same question that I asked of some of your department's senior officials when they appeared before us a few days ago. I asked about their involvement with the L'Acadien II file. Now, I am asking you about your own involvement.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you very much.

If I understand you, you're talking about the incident with the Acadian II and where we go from here. I thought there might be a specific request there that I missed.

Immediately after the incident, as I said in my opening remarks, we sent people from the coast guard—and there were other people there also, including some of my own staff—to the Magdelans to make sure we were on site, that people had someone to go to and talk to as all of this unfolded.

We committed at the time—and we have not changed that commitment—to find out exactly what went on. The first thing we found was their concern that the search for the missing fisherman had been called off quickly. We immediately, as you well know, because you worked with us on it, got that search going and did a complete, extensive search well above and beyond the area involved to make sure that nothing was missed.

I personally talked to representatives of the family, to the mayor, etc. We said we would do three things. One, we knew the Transportation Safety Board would carry out their regular thorough safety, long-term check, looking at everything involved. The RCMP were involved, and I think we should soon hear their report, because theirs is probably the one that will take the least time, to see if there was any wrongdoing. They will be reporting on that.

We, ourselves, did the internal...well, from within, but covering all aspects, a study that is usually done internally by the coast guard. Because of the involvement of the coast guard in this, we wanted to make sure it was transparent and objective, and we arranged, after a thorough search, to find somebody who knew how to deal with people, who understood marine life, and who was competent enough to make such a study. As I mentioned, we got Mr. Roger Girouard, to head that independent study.

From my own observations and our discussions with people, I think they understand fully that we are covering every base possible from every angle. The question is, what happens when we get the final details? That is strictly hypothetical, but I assure you and I assure the people that there is nothing here...there is no fooling around, there is no covering up. We are making an open, objective series of studies, and not only will we not interfere, but if we hear of anybody interfering, we will take action. We will make sure the people will have the truth of what happened, and after that we will continue to work with them.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you.

I will now move on to another issue, namely, the seal hunt. I'm not sure if you were surprised, or even disappointed, but I can tell you that I was surprised, disappointed, and even angered by what Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams and the Nunavut premier had to say about the hakapik.

I am mad because it makes no sense for people who are leaders and who should be well-informed to make that type of statement about the use of the hakapik for hunting, since by their statements they are playing into the hands of those who want to see the hunt abolished. As you know, this directly affects the people of the Magdalen Islands who have chosen this method that a group of independent veterinarians considers to be appropriate, relevant, proper, and free of cruelty.

I would like to hear what you have to say about this because it makes no sense for these people to try and drag us backwards after all of the progress that has been made.

I would also like to congratulate you for the work that was done with respect to the Farley Mowat, but in my opinion, we seem to be taking one step forward and two steps back.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Again, Mr. Chair, I thank the member for the question and his comments.

I agree with you totally. I was surprised, very surprised. It was done without any consultation whatsoever. There was no contact made with me or my department prior to an open public statement by the two premiers. I don't think it was helpful at all. Even if the industry people were thinking about banning the hakapik—they've had some discussions about the pros and cons that didn't last very long, for the reasons you mentioned—you'd be trying to use it to gain some favour. If you're going to give up something, what are you going to get? If you just say ban it, those others will just applaud and say that's great.

We banned the killing of whitecoats. What did it get us? Nothing. We stopped killing bluebacks. What did it get us? Nothing. If we ban the hakapik, what are we looking at next year? It will be the gun.

It was nonsensical. I didn't even react, because I thought that was the best thing to do. I didn't even comment. When asked sometime after, I just said that if we made any changes to the hunt they would be dictated by the industry, not by a provincial premier or by me. Industry will decide what they need.

The hakapik is not only used in areas like the Magdalen Islands or by the sealers from Prince Edward Island, for instance. It can be a lifesaver. Many of our sealers on the front were very upset about the comments, because they listed occasions such as when you fall off an ice pan and it's the only hope you have of getting back on the ice. For pulling seals, for retrieving, for a number of reasons, the hakapik is used.

Again, just to say let's give it up because of perception, look, we are here, you are here, I'm here to try to do the best for our sealers, not to do the best for the animal rights people and the protesters. That's the philosophy we have, and we'll live by it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We'll go to Ms. Bell.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the minister for attending.

I'm sorry I was late this morning.

Of course, as you know, I'm from the west coast, and I have had a lot of concerns brought to me by fishermen lately. They are very concerned about the prospects for going fishing this summer. Of course, they are ever hopeful. I am wondering if you can tell me, this committee, and fishermen in general what the prospects might be for fishing.

On the west coast we've heard of closures and first nations sharing of fish. We understand absolutely about conservation and the need to take those measures when we have low levels of fish. We've also heard about the collapse of the U.S. fish and the closure in California. And that has a lot of people wondering what is happening in our waters.

Maybe you could just share with us where we're at in terms of those kinds of closures.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you very much for the question.

You're right, you hear about our problems and our concerns on the east coast in certain species. The west coast has its own problems--salmon in particular. When you talk about the fishery, the icon out there is the sockeye. Even though some of the fisheries are doing relatively well, an exercise we went through about a year and a half ago, shortly after I came in and took a lot of flak for it originally--the groundfish integration plan--has worked out extremely well. It's been lauded by practically everyone involved.

We did a lot of work to minimize the costs that would be involved in bringing in such a plan, etc. It's enabled a lot of fishermen to continue to fish and catch species they depend on while sharing bycatch with other fishermen, etc. It's a total integration of the groundfish operation and it's been very successful. In some species they are doing very well.

When it comes to salmon, we have major problems. You never know, of course, until you get the returns, but the predictions this year, certainly on sockeye, are rather dim. In the way we look at sharing any fish, it doesn't matter if it's B.C. or anywhere else, conservation comes first, and it has to come first. If not, we're not going to have a fishery in the future.

In areas where we have first nations, the food, social, and ceremonial fishery comes next. We are very pleased with the input from first nations. Instead of dealing with them from afar, which might have happened for too long in the past, we've brought them around the table. They are heavily involved in decision-making. Last year we saw real leadership even in their food, social, and ceremonial component--not the commercial component, but in how much they caught and spread it to those who had less, etc. Again this year they're making some suggestions, knowing it will be tough and knowing that further up the stream some bands just won't have access to the fish, and they're talking about sharing, etc. That is laudable.

David can add to this, but for some of the species--chum, I believe--later on in the year it looks as if there might be a very good fishery. But again sockeye seems to be key, and even though it's only a small percentage of the total fishery on the west coast, it's like cod off Newfoundland. If you don't have cod, you have nothing, even though we make more money on the fishery than we ever did.

Do you want to add something to that, David?

[David Bevan]

I think in the southern range of the salmons, particularly sockeye, chinook, and, to a certain extent, coho, we're seeing some problems develop. In those areas, however, chum and pink are doing quite well, so there may be some other opportunities for some commercial fishing on other species. I recognize their value is not the same as sockeye and chinook, but there are going to have to be adjustments as we face the fact that oceanographic conditions have not led to the same kinds of survival rates in recent years that we've had in the past, and those have had impacts on the returns.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Bevan, and thank you, Ms. Bell.

Mr. Allen.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister and your staff, for being here today.

I have a few questions I want to ask, and most of them relate to the estimates and plans and priorities. This first one might be directed more to Mr. Hegge, and then to the minister for more of a general question.

In the main estimates you talk about the program enablers. Roughly 27% of the costs on the base budget for all the different regions and programs are the program enablers.

Mr. Hegge, how is that allocated to the sectors and the agencies, and what's your mechanism for allocating those out?

Minister, how are those developed over time? More specifically, what's the ongoing process to review the effectiveness of these costs on a year-by-year basis?

[Cal Hegge, Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources and Corporate Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you for the question.

As you rightly point out, the enablers are allocated over all of the program areas. It's a rather complicated algorithm, I guess, that's used, and if you want me to get into the details of that, I'd have to do some homework and come back to speak to that. I'm surprised to hear that the percentage is as high as you indicated. I'd have to also look into that, because I thought it was more in the 15% to 20% range.

When we talk about enablers, of course, we're talking about the finance and administration, the corporate services, policy, executive services, communications, legal services. There are a number of functions that go in to make up the enablers, and they play an important role, of course, for the department to deliver on its mandate.

Treasury Board is doing a lot of work at the present time in terms of what they call internal services or enablers--to use another term--in terms of setting service standards and being able to measure more specifically the contribution the enablers make, not just to our department but to all government departments.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

If you want me to just pick up on that and on general costs.... Different departments, of course, have different costs in running the department. It depends on how many you have involved and where.

I'll tell you one thing, it's not the minister's entertainment. It started a scandal earlier in the year when they realized I had no entertainment during the three-month period; everybody wanted to know what I was covering up. You don't get time to entertain in this racket.

This department is not only national--you have an office across the country type of thing--but we are also a department that's on the ground. You have fisheries officers all over the place, habitat people all over the place, and that requires a fair amount of travel, etc. That stuff certainly adds up. But we are also heavily involved internationally, not only on the fishing files but with stuff like WTO, etc., all the different organizations. It's a department that is not cheap to run.

What we have been doing, and what we will continue to do.... If we didn't have as many daily crises that are so important to our fishermen, we could sort of sit back and say we're going to take a week to go through the department section by section to see where we can consolidate a bit more. We have people who do that.

We try to get the best bang for the buck. Are we ever perfect? I don't know. Are we perfect ourselves with our own budgets? There are always ways you can be more efficient, but sometimes saving money at the expense of not getting the job done is not the way to do it either. So there is that middle ground. But we all have to be conscious of that, to make sure we have the resources to enable us to do the job, but not to take advantage of that and be wasteful.

That's about all I can say to you.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Minister, for leading me to my next question.

One of the things in the new Fisheries Act talks about cooperation between federal and provincial agencies and ways that, possibly, we can get some efficiencies. When you're looking at water courses and some of the reviews that are done, there are provincial visits and then there are federal visits, and then people keep coming back over and over. One of the comments I get quite often is, why couldn't we make one visit; why couldn't this be coordinated as a single point of entry?

As part of the Fisheries Act and some of this cooperation, what do you see as major areas, in your mind, where there's potential for overlap to gain efficiencies going forward?