Fisheries Committee on March 14th, 2012

[Claire Dansereau]

I can assure you that aids to navigation will never be completely cut; we are still going to have those services. Meanwhile, Roch will give you the technical explanation as to where you can find that money in the budget.

[Roch Huppé]

Those two programs that you mentioned are actually the two programs that have been merged to create marine navigation, one single program that now includes the icebreaking program and the aids to navigation program. So there are no budget cuts; there are simply two budgets that have been merged under the same program activity.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Okay.

What was the amount in the past and what is the amount now that the two have been merged?

[Roch Huppé]

On the previous page, you can see that the amount for 2011-2012 was 37.7 and now it is 39.3.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Thank you.

I will now yield the floor to my colleague Ryan.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you.

From the estimates, we talk about the significant decreases, and they are significant. You add them up and it's $35 million. Plus, you have the decreases that are coming, that are expected with the end-of-March budget. I believe each federal department is looking at cuts between 5% and 10%.

My question is a pretty broad question. Considering the cuts we've experienced and considering the cuts that are coming, how can Canadians expect to have faith in the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans to carry out its mandate when so much of the funding has been cut? Mr. Kamp, when he asked his question, asked about morale within the Canadian Coast Guard. But what's the morale like in DFO overall?

[Claire Dansereau]

Thank you for the question.

I think there are three parts to it. One, we can't talk about the future in future budgets, so I can't predict whether our budget will go up or down. We know we put forward proposals.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Maybe you can talk about Canadians having faith in your department to do what needs to be done.

[Claire Dansereau]

Certainly. That was the third part of the question. The second part of the question is the magnitude of the cuts that you see here. As we did say earlier, some of the cuts, or what appear to be cuts, are sunsetter programs, and we don't know whether they will be found in the next budget.

On the issue of morale within the public service in general, I can say that there was a survey done. As you know, we do a survey every three years. We were very pleased to see that morale is not decreasing. There are areas where people are concerned, obviously, and because of the survey we will be able to work on those areas.

In terms of service to Canadians, we can assure you that the programs and the desired outcomes of the programs don't change for us. We will make sure that the service to Canadians is what is required according to our mandate. As you know, strategic review was designed to allow us to look at areas that might not be in our mandate to try to streamline and move forward, as any good business ought to do. So we are confident that the budget that is being discussed here is one that will meet the needs.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

I want to get specifically into that $11.9 million cut to science and sustainable fisheries. How will that impact various regions at DFO? For example, how will that impact Newfoundland and Labrador?

[Claire Dansereau]

That's one of the sunsetter programs, and it is one we are looking at very carefully. As I say, we don't know what will come from the budget, but any priority areas of science that need to be done will be done.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

What difference will the Newfoundland and Labrador region see in science with that almost $12 million cut?

[Claire Dansereau]

I can't tell you specifically in that almost $12 million cut, because, as I say, there is still some consideration on that. I can say that there was some nervousness last year when we talked about multi-species assessments and some changes to how we do our science. We can assure you that we are simply moving towards multi-species assessments for those species of fish that don't require annual assessments. For those that do require annual assessments, the science will continue in order for us to be able to make sound decisions. Science will be targeted at allowing us to provide the minister with the best information to make the best decisions for Canadians.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Let me ask you a question, then, on multi-year assessments. The question has been raised by industry whether or not that would apply to every species out there. The concern has been raised that shrimp, for example, off the northeast coast of Newfoundland may fall under a multi-year assessment. Would it?

[Claire Dansereau]

Some species require assessment even more than once a year. Some species require a yearly assessment, and some species are okay for a three-to-five year period. Our decisions on that will be based on the requirements of the species. Whether the shrimp will be.... No, I would say not. It will not be a multi-year species, whereas some of the groundfish will be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Davidson, you have the floor.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks very much for being with us today. We certainly appreciate the information, and certainly the explanation beforehand was very helpful. Although a lot of us have been through the estimates several times, they are always still confusing, so it's great to hear the explanation.

My riding is on the Great Lakes, so I'm going to talk a little bit more about that area of DFO.

First of all, I want to talk about invasive species. We know that it's a real, great threat to our watershed systems. When I'm looking at the estimate, it appears that program funding for the aquatic invasive species is in fact being decreased. Could you explain why that would be? Why would they cut that funding when we're looking at really important things such as the Asian carp? I know we're working with our U.S. counterparts, but everything we are talking about is just horrendously expensive.

Have I read that correctly? Is that amount being decreased?

[Roch Huppé]

No, actually the amount is fairly stable. We have a difference of $40,000 on that particular item. That amount remains stable from the last fiscal year.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Okay. How does that compare with what the United States is spending on invasive species? Do you know that?

[Claire Dansereau]

Roch won't be able to answer that.

We are obviously a much smaller country than the United States. We try to keep our funding somewhat in parallel with theirs, although we will never be able to fund to the extent they do. But we do work very closely with them through a series of working groups on carp and on other species. They do appreciate the efforts we make, and they are supportive of our approaches. I can't say exactly what the comparisons are, but we work with the United States on anything we do in the Great Lakes and other parts of Canada where there is a relationship with them.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

It's my understanding that we don't have any specified programs for the Great Lakes. What kind of funding support is available from DFO for dealing with things that are specific to the Great Lakes fisheries?

And when we're talking about funding, I'm glad to hear the funding is not being decreased to the invasive species portion, because I think that's extremely important. Is there any way we can address the urgency of protecting the Great Lakes waters from these invasive species? Is there a particular program we could enter into?

I just don't think our investment is in line with the importance of the fisheries in that area, whether it be commercial or sport, and the protection of our Great Lakes waters in general.

[Claire Dansereau]

Thank you.

The management of the fishery itself is delegated to the province, but management of the aquatic invasive species is something we do jointly with Ontario and the United States.

Siddika can speak to some of this. She's on the Great Lakes Commission, and then there's an aquatic invasive species working group.

We are extremely active. Could we do more? Probably. But we know we're paying very close attention, certainly to the Asian carp and the sea lamprey, and to the other species that might be at risk.

We also work with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. They can reach a whole lot of people who might be bringing species into the Great Lakes.

A lot of our focus is also on education, and we've done some good work on the ballast water. You may know that.

We look at various ways we can educate the public to not bring in the species and make sure we have the systems in place for an emergency response should Asian carp actually breach the barriers that are there.

Siddika can talk a little bit more about the work we do in our various working groups.

[Dr. Siddika Mithani, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Oceans Science Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

With the U.S., we do have a joint research program looking at research monitoring analysis of aquatic invasive species. What's really important and very critical is.... I previously talked about the binational risk assessment that should be published very shortly. A lot of work on the Asian carp is coming to a critical stage. Within the binational risk assessment, we've looked at arrival, survival, establishment, and spread from a scientific perspective. That particular document will provide management with potential areas for monitoring and what management needs to do in order to look at prevention.

It is coming to a head, and we will see a lot more management and joint management programs, particularly with Asian carp, but also joint research with aquatic invasive species.

[Claire Dansereau]

If I may add, we can't say arrival, survival, and spread, because it hasn't arrived.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Did I understand you correctly, in answer to my colleague's question about the ice-breaking, that there is no change in that and it's rolled into a different area in here?