Evidence of meeting #20 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was organization.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Mr. Chair, please note that the witness failed to answer the question.
Thank you very much.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate you coming, Mr. Bonnell, to help us understand this issue. I'm sure you agree with me that the government is all about making choices. We're here to understand the choice the government has made in this case and get your perspective on it. For us to understand that, we need to understand CCFI as well as we can. Please don't take anything we say as questioning the good work CCFI has been involved in over the last 20 or so years.
Although I think Mr. Blais asked, I didn't completely hear the answer to how your non-profit organization runs. I heard a reference to an industrial liaison officer, and I think I heard a number on the administrative overhead, and so on. Can you tell me about your employees? We've heard about your board and so on, but how many people actually receive salaries from CCFI? What do they do, what are their qualifications, and so on?
Noon
Managing Director, Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation
In our St. John's office, under normal circumstances, we would have two officers. We've been down to one for much of the last year or two. We've had funding challenges for the last couple of years, and we've been operating on a very lean budget.
Under normal circumstances, though, the centre would have two industrial liaison officers. One would probably be involved in the harvesting sector and the other in the processing and aquaculture sector in St. John's, and one would be in Bedford, Nova Scotia. So that's three industrial liaison officers, me as managing director, an executive assistant, and a secretary. That's the contingent of staff we would have.
Normally it's a requirement for anyone who works for the centre, certainly at the industrial liaison level, to have a good, broad-based background in industry, because this is--I say it too much, but it's for a reason--an industry-driven organization. We want industrial liaison officers who can deal with industry, who know how to work with industry, but who have great knowledge of the academic community as well, and can match those areas of expertise in a timely and relevant manner.
That's the contingent we have in terms of our operational structure and organization.
Noon
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
None of those people are biologists or academics or bring that kind of....
You mentioned that you're “catalysts” and so on. In what way are CCFI employees catalysts? How are the industrial liaison officers providing this catalytic role that you refer to?
Noon
Managing Director, Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation
Our ILOs might sometimes be biologists. We've had industrial liaison officers with biology backgrounds. It's not uncommon. They could be academics, in some cases. But they have to have good expertise in terms of their knowledge of the industry and working with industry.
Generally, it would work like this. Let's say an industry client or an individual has a problem or efficiency issues with his boat and he wants to look at designing a new bulbous bow for his operation. He will call up the industrial liaison officer, because he's aware of the centre, and he will say, “Listen, this is my problem. Do you know anybody who can help with this? Is there any funding available for this?” The ILO will go out there, take a look at the issue, and say, “Yes, we have an engineer at Memorial University who has great expertise in this area; let's go have a chat.” Then he will come back, call the academic researcher, and bring them together to sit down and talk about the issue. If there's a project there, the ILO will facilitate the development of that proposal by the academic lead. He will go out and talk to the NRC/IRAPs of the world and the provincial agencies and solicit funding support, get the project proposal in place, get the project up and running, manage it right through to make sure that all the milestones and all the deliverables are being met, make sure the accountability is there, which is an important consideration as well, and then do any follow-up work required.
So he is the catalyst for that. Without him, that work doesn't happen. And I would debate anyone on that. Some of it will happen, but largely it won't. The key reason is that industry is busy. They don't have time to run with this. In many cases, they don't know where to run with it.
In the academic community, their expertise is doing research, and that's their focus. For them, time spent liaising with industry and trying to drum up work is time away from research. That's time they largely don't have.
The catalyst role is essential, but don't forget the funding role as well. There aren't many other agencies out there that fund fisheries development. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans doesn't do it anymore, not on the development side.
I hope that gives you a bit of a clearer understanding.
Noon
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
I appreciate that.
Any responsible government, of course, should always be looking at programs to see if they still have a valid role to play. Sometimes the world changes. In this case, is it possible that the world has changed, that in 1989, when this started, there was very little interaction between industry and academics, that problem-solving wasn't happening then but is happening better now, and that they have a different kind of relationship and work together better now? Industry is certainly much more scientifically interested than they used to be. I think there's no denying that. Is it possible that the government's money perhaps could be better spent, then, on directly funding some of these things rather than going through a third-party funder, which CCFI appears to be?
I'd just like your comments on that.
12:05 p.m.
Managing Director, Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation
The quick answer is no.
Yes, the industry has evolved and changed over the last 20 years, but it's changed and focused on different areas that still require the support of the centre. Again, ACOA has made the point that there has been $60 million through the Atlantic innovation fund over the last seven years. It's a great thing, but as I mentioned, $60 million funds 10 to 15 projects--large-scale initiatives--for 10 to 15 clients. Most of the applied research that's undertaken in the Atlantic fishing industry is on a much smaller-scale basis. So to suggest that the industry has evolved and no longer requires the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation, frankly, is not accurate for that very reason. Many of the 60 to 70 projects or the 200-plus we've conducted over the last five years or the almost 300 over the last seven years would not have been done.
As for the successes there, if you think about return on investment, I can give you an example of one project we've undertaken that would give you the return on our $1.5 million budget instantly. If you look at it from a return-on-investment standpoint, the federal government is getting a fabulous return on investment from the centre's research in terms of the commercialization of our R and D.
I respect the position and the discussion, but the reality is much different. I can take the 60 to 70 letters of support from industry and the outcry from the Nellie Bakers of the world and everyone else as demonstrations of the need for the centre and its relevance today more so than in 1989. I would vehemently argue that the relevance is much greater today than it was in 1989 given the tsunami of issues facing this industry this year, certainly, and we haven't seen some of the things that will be on the horizon over the next 12 months given the global economic circumstances we're facing. The relevance is clear.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
You might be aware of the Auditor General's 2001 report on ACOA, in which she actually looked at ACOA and what it funds and so on. It's a pretty in-depth report. She referred specifically in that report to the business development program policy against providing core funding beyond three years to not-for-profit organizations. It's that kind of report that provides some direction for ACOA when it looks at funding contributions for things such as CCFI.
Do you agree that the kind of funding you get from ACOA is core funding? How much of what is provided by the federal government goes towards projects? That question has already been asked and answered, but this is one of the issues that obviously would concern us.
ACOA is not in the business of providing that kind of core funding for not-for-profit organizations. You will have to make the case that the kind of funding you've been receiving falls outside of that.
12:05 p.m.
Managing Director, Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation
I can respond to that fairly clearly.
I actually read Treasury Board guidelines because of the issues that have been raised. I went through them cover to cover. The key issue with respect to Treasury Board is accountability. There are many examples today--and I can cite dozens--of the federal government providing funding to organizations like CCFI on a third-party-delivery basis. I can use the example of Springboard Atlantic, which is funded by ACOA, which has a model similar to CCFI's.
I respect that opinion, of course, but we have an accountability structure in place in our organization that's second to none. We've been audited for the last 20 years. We've had two independent audits from ACOA in the last three years. We have a good governance structure. We follow the ISO procedures through the academic institution at Memorial University. There is no issue of public accountability.
I respect the position, but Treasury Board guidelines have sections on third-party delivery of transfer payments. We clearly fall within that arena. I understand it, but there is a clear response. If you look at it from a practical standpoint, when you have an organization like ours that's accountable and does the work we do, there's no reason not to continue that support. That's certainly my position on it.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Thank you very much, Mr. Bonnell, and welcome.
We're in a difficult time in the lobster industry, and we're very concerned about stocks declining. I'd like you to comment on that and on some of the areas you've been involved in. Also, you talked about the liaison officers and their involvement in industry, on both sides--in the fishery and in the processing. I've seen some of the work that Ocean Choice has done on the extraction of lobster meat.
I'll just give you a couple of minutes to elaborate on the price of fish and the problems we have and what's on the horizon. This is the core of the problem we're dealing with at the moment.
To think that we're going to lose you.... You did not get a letter from me, but I can tell you that you have my full support in every way possible, because at this time we need you and your people and the work that you do.
Am I correct in understanding that with most of the federal dollars, for $1 you actually end up with $5 or $6? Is that right?
I'll leave it that, but don't talk too long, or my colleague will be annoyed with me.
12:10 p.m.
Managing Director, Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation
I have a very quick response to that.
Our leverage rate is about five to six to one. Actually, I didn't present this, but if we look at the last year, where we had short-term funding through the Innovative Communities Fund, our leverage rate was seven to one. Because we had such limited funds, we were aggressively leveraging. So yes, we do have a very strong leverage rate.
On the lobster industry side, there are huge challenges on the horizon. There's no doubt. There are huge challenges now. One of our committee members said it best. He said, our group, the lobster round table, is sowing the seeds for the future. We're looking at marketing issues...[Technical difficulty--Editor]. We're looking at addressing certification issues...[Technical difficulty--Editor]...coming upon us very hard and quick in the global community. It's not going to deal with the problems come May 1. We understand that. But we're sowing the seeds to make sure that in the years to come we have a strategy and a plan and we're at the table together developing a strategy for the future of this industry. It will make us a better industry down the road, there's no doubt about that.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Mr. Carey, thanks for coming in.
I want to put this into perspective so that we see what the ask is to ACOA. I know we heard it; you mentioned it briefly. What is the ask to ACOA, and over what time period?
12:10 p.m.
Managing Director, Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation
The request to ACOA is $1 million per year. We've requested this for the next five years. If somebody comes back and says, listen, five years is not realistic, we need to look at a three-year arrangement, those are issues that you can discuss legitimately. We'd like to have some stability as a centre, because for the last five years almost now we have been going from year to year, and in some cases from month to month. It's a drain on the centre and it takes away....
We had a board meeting recently, and one of our members said, geez, we're doing great work, this is great stuff. My response was, yes, but imagine if I and some of my employees could put 100% of our focus into development work how successful we would be as an organization.
We'd like to have some stability as a centre, so the request is $1 million per year for five years from ACOA. Last year the point was made by ACOA that funding is a challenge, there's not a lot of money available right now, there are huge liens and requests--and that was a legitimate argument. Today we have a $40 billion stimulus package on the table. There's not a lot in that stimulus package specifically identified for fisheries. Other resource sectors have had a significant amount of focus. There are elements of that package that talk about resource-based economies where the fisheries certainly could apply. In our view, we would be a great catalyst for the fisheries component of that stimulus package. If there was an opportunity there, we'd obviously want to pursue that.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
How much funding are you getting from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans right now?
12:10 p.m.
Managing Director, Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation
We had a request in to DFO for $300,000 per year for the next five years. We have no commitment in place. What I will say is we have had very productive discussions with Minister Shea. My position, based on my discussions, is that DFO is supportive of the centre. Her position in my most recent meeting with her was that the total $1.3 million federal request would be best served coming as part of the federal stimulus package. But we have no commitments from DFO, other than those comments and discussions.
12:10 p.m.
Managing Director, Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation
Occasionally, we get funding on projects, but nothing towards the renewal of the centre. We have no commitment at this point.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Okay.
I have two other questions.
Minister Ashfield continues to say that your organization was notified last year of this decision, giving you some time to wind down or find other opportunities of funding. It's been reported out there--and I'd like you to clear the air on that particular question--that your board has known this for some time. I notice in your presentation you mention you completed in 2008...and your first rejection letter was just recently.
Maybe you could clear the air on that, just to set the record straight.
12:10 p.m.
Managing Director, Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation
There are two key points on that.
Overall, this “he said, she said” is not what this is all about. This is about the loss of a highly valued fisheries, research, and development organization--or the potential loss. We shouldn't be debating who said this sort of stuff.
There are two key points. One is that CCFI was never told. We had a contract in place last March through the Innovative Communities Fund that called for us to do an operational sustainability review. It made no mention or reference to the fact that there would be no further funding from ACOA. That's clear. CCFI, its executive, its board, was not told. That's a fact.
The second point, which I think is also an important point, is that then federal Fisheries and Oceans Minister Loyola Hearn, in discussions both with us as a centre and with the Atlantic Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers...and the ministers can attest to this, because there was a strong advocacy moving forward from the ministers to Minister Hearn to support the centre. His comment was, yes, we're going to support the centre now, but going forward, why don't the provinces come to the table and support a renewed mandate for the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation to come on board with us. That was the comment that was directly made to the ministers and to us. Now, Minister Hearn has since retired, so obviously that's not on the table. But his comments were clear: he wanted the provinces to come to the table. There's no doubt.
We were not told. We were told to bring the provinces on board, which is why I spent much of last year travelling the beautiful Maritimes, talking to the provinces, ministers, bureaucrats, officials in industry, and getting them on board. We went out and did what we were asked to do, which is what makes this a little bit frustrating from our standpoint in terms of where we are today.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Bloc
Yvon Lévesque Bloc Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Bonnell. Are you familiar with the Institut Maurice-Lamontagne? It is situated in Mont-Joli, in the Lower St. Lawrence area.
