Evidence of meeting #42 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was science.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Marty Muldoon  Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Trevor Swerdfager  Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Oceans Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Jody Thomas  Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Kevin Stringer  Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Matthew King  Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Tom Rosser  Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Noon

Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Marty Muldoon

I'd be happy to.

While you find your way to slide 5, where I'll begin, I'll just reiterate a point I'm going to come back to a little bit later, which is found earlier in the deck. That is, these main estimates include only those items, as the committee would well be aware, that had been approved in previous estimates processes. That fact becomes important when I get you to slide 5, and I'll just point out that while there is, as the minister pointed out, a $284-million rounded increase this year, that excludes the amounts we will bring in through supplementary estimates for the federal infrastructure funding approvals.

On slide 5, you will note the disbursements between our operating and capital expenditures, etc. This is just to give a demonstration of where that $284 million affects us. The primary driver's on our capital side, and I'm going to just highlight a few more points.

While it looks rather large, remember that this is main estimates over main estimates, so what we started with last year and what we started with this year. Where we ended last year is only $26 million short of the 2015-16 main estimates. Said again, we are starting with $1.889 billion in these main estimates, and the 2014-15 ending expenditures for the department will be in the order of $1.86 billion. It's very close. That's a lot of shifting and mostly just timing.

Let's turn to slide 6. As Minister Shea had highlighted, the main story this year for DFO's estimates is asset renewal. While this page won't add up to exactly this figure, it's awfully close. I would just point out that $249 million of the $284 million is about asset renewal for the coast guard fleet—land, air, and marine.

In the first one, approximately $114 million is for the procurement of light-lift helicopters. I'm pleased to state that the organization has taken receipt of its first helicopter. It was delivered at the very end of 2014-15, and the remainder will follow over the course of this year and next.

The next item is $44 million for the offshore fisheries science vessels. Work has been done at the Vancouver shipyard. As the committee is probably well aware from the last few different times of main and supplementary estimates appearances, there are three vessels involved in this build. At this point, these funds are necessary for preparations before construction. We've gone ahead with the purchase of long-lead items: the sophisticated navigation systems, the propulsion systems, those kinds of things that are necessary, as well as the engineering and design work.

There's $41 million for life extensions and modernizations. Just as a point of clarification, the mid-life modernizations are basically an activity we undertake after a vessel has exceeded 50% of its planned useful life, and they don't add to the life. They basically recondition the vessel to continue and meet the full expected life. By contrast, a vessel life extension, which we're using quite extensively right now while we implement our overall vessel renewal program, is an extension to the life of the vessel. If it was meant to be on the water for 25 years, we may get it to 30 years through a VLE, or a vessel life extension. So $41 million is included in these main estimates for that purpose.

Rounding out that approximately $250 million are three more items. There's $40 million for the medium-lift helicopter program. Seven helicopters will be purchased under that initiative. The first is due one year from this summer. As well, though it's not on this list because it's a little bit smaller in aggregate value, there is $6 million towards the polar class icebreaker that gets us going on some very early stages of that program, and some refit money for the CCGS Amundsen vessel.

Then you see the remaining items here. Renewal of the Pacific and Atlantic integrated commercial fisheries programs was announced last year in budget 2014. Last year we supplemented that money, but this year I'm able to book it in through the main estimates, so you see it here. Then the $22 million was also a 2014 item, and we were successful in utilizing close to half of the $40 million announced under 2014. We ramped up quickly. We got $17.8 million into the program and into the field to the harbours that needed it, so the difference, the $22.2 million, is what you see here being put through the main estimates this time around.

Of course, as we report in every main estimates, this is the final reduction for the department under the reviews, and every other department has incurred outside of targeted review. We were one of the few that went through that and we have successfully met all of those objectives.

I did take notice of a line item on page 5 to note where the funding had increased for the department.

I also wanted to point out slide 7, capital vote redefinition. It's a notable item that any department that has capital in its vote structure will be going through this year, and it is a one-time reset.

Basically what happened was that all of government was looking at how capital is codified in its systems and realized that everybody treats capital projects slightly differently when it comes to work on the borderline between maintenance work and minor capital work, so now all departments that have capital launched a major reset. No money has been taken away from the department. It's net neutral. But basically now all activities that should be in the operating vote are going to be in the operating vote, and capital activities are purely defined against the government's accounting standard.

For us, that means $88 million is basically moving between votes. It's so many different little places. I can do the bulk of it for you. If you were ever to ask me to unpack that for you, I can kind of describe it. Basically what it means is, for instance under the coast guard, where they would have been, maybe under our acceptable accounting practices, spending a great deal of money to maintain a vessel, through its capital program that money will now be on its operating side. It's still in the program. It hasn't left the department.

There is one example, and that's the last slide, number 8, regarding capital redefinition. This is the only example in our main estimates where we actually move money from one program to another in our program activity architecture, our program alignment architecture. It's very small. It's $3.8 million shifted between where it used to be spent under operational readiness or fleet readiness. We took the opportunity this time around, because we always, every year, in year, had to transfer this money over to our maintenance dredging program. This time, while we did the capital redefinition, we also aligned it with where the activity actually occurs. I just wanted to point that out for full and transparent disclosure.

I'll pass by the next number of slides. I put them in here every year with the committee to give you somewhat of a better lens, looking by program, of where the organization uses its resources.

I'll draw your attention to slide 13, the last slide. As you're well aware, we won't get the main estimates until they have been voted, through this process and others, but I would point out that interim supply is now in place. It was passed by the Senate on March 31. We're out of the gate for the first three-twelfths of the fiscal year, with all votes' operating authorities of $450 million.

Again, this is just a reminder that we will probably increase, I would say, substantially the operating authorities of the department over the course of this year for three reasons. First is the bringing in of the year-one installment of the organization's allocation of federal infrastructure money. Second, we will bring in the operating budget carry-forward amounts that we will be eligible to carry forward, and third, the capital budget carry-forward amounts, as well.

That was it, Mr. Chair, for a bit of a flavour of what the main estimates entail.

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

Thank you very much, Mr. Muldoon. We appreciate that.

Now we'll move to a five-minute round of questions, and we'll start with Monsieur Lapointe.

April 23rd, 2015 / 12:15 p.m.

NDP

François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I first want to point out how deplorable it is that the official opposition only had 10 minutes to ask the minister questions when we are supposed to be dealing with the fundamental aspects of Bill S-3, Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, as well as the 2015-16 Main Estimates. It's a serious breach of the fundamental principles of responsible government. So we will have to focus on the remaining hour, starting with the main estimates.

An amount of $40.9 million is planned for extending the lives of Coast Guard vessels. Of that amount, $13.6 million will go to Davie Canada Yard, in Quebec. That's pretty good news, but it is not a lot considering that $33 billion is currently allocated for the construction of new vessels.

Moreover, when it comes to the construction of those new vessels, the government has experienced a variety of fairly worrisome difficulties, including delivery delays and cost escalation. In 2010, when all that started, Davie Canada Yard was in pretty bad shape, but it was restructured to such an extent that Lloyd's List North American Maritime Awards recently recognized the yard with an award for excellence.

Regarding the issues related to the building of new vessels, can we expect the $33 billion that has been allocated to ultimately be released? Can we expect future decisions to include the Davie Canada Yard in Quebec City?

12:20 p.m.

Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Jody Thomas

Thank you for the question. Davie shipyard we use frequently for vessel life extensions. In fact, we have two vessels in Davie right now. Des Groseilliers, one of our medium icebreakers, is there in order to have a refit done before the Arctic season, and the Earl Grey is now in Davie for nine months. The national shipbuilding procurement strategy awarded contracts to two yards. At that time, the two chosen were Irving and Vancouver shipyards. Davie remains available for really critical vessel life extension and refit work. Having three sustainable yards in this country is critical, and the work that Davie is doing now is very important to the coast guard fleet.

12:20 p.m.

NDP

François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

As you just said, there are only three major shipyards that can carry out this kind of work.

Are you telling me that Davie could be awarded some of those contracts?

12:20 p.m.

Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Jody Thomas

Davie will not be getting vessels that were awarded under NSPS. Those vessels have been named.

12:20 p.m.

NDP

François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Thank you.

Last year, salmon runs in Quebec rivers decreased dramatically. That makes for an extremely gloomy climate in the wildlife industry.

Do you think the Fisheries and Oceans Canada budgets for conservation, research and Atlantic salmon stock assessment activities are sufficient? If so, given such poor results, how do you justify the positive balance of investments and resources for ensuring the maintenance of Atlantic salmon stocks in rivers not only in eastern Quebec, but also across the Maritimes?

12:20 p.m.

Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Kevin Stringer

Thank you for the question.

Salmon really is a significant issue. The minister spoke to the advisory committee that was recently established and which has had meetings across the Atlantic. Our first meeting was in Halifax, then in Moncton, St. John's now, and then there's a meeting in Quebec. At each of the meetings the advisory committee meets with a group of stakeholders to talk about what is happening in that particular area and what specific issues and steps can be taken to address the concerns that everybody has in the stocks. The reality is that it is a challenge across the Atlantic. It's doing well in some areas. Newfoundland and Labrador are still doing fairly well. In the southern reaches it's a big concern.

With respect to the resources and the funding we have for Atlantic salmon, we spend annually about $11 million or $12 million on Atlantic salmon specifically. I would add to that, and the minister spoke to this, the recreational fisheries partnership program's significant investments—

12:20 p.m.

NDP

François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Sorry for the interruption, Mr. Stringer.

You said that consultations were held with stakeholder organizations. That's always a good thing.

12:20 p.m.

Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

12:20 p.m.

NDP

François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

You are also saying that the steps to be taken have been identified.

Could you tell us what those steps are and how the budget of about $11 million you just mentioned would be sufficient for those steps?

12:20 p.m.

Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Kevin Stringer

We haven't got the report yet from the committee. We got an interim report that actually said we think you should take a number of steps, for example move to catch and retention only in the gulf area. We did that. We'll look very carefully at the final report that we get from the committee. If it speaks to financial issues, we may look at how we do our spending now, but we don't have that yet.

We had a number of discussions with the committee, some very open and transparent discussions in terms of “Here is how much money we have. Here is where we spend it. Here is what we think the priorities are. What do you think of that?” I very much expect we'll see in the final report views with respect to that and we'll look at that.

12:25 p.m.

NDP

François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Is it not worrisome—

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

Thank you, Mr. Lapointe.

12:25 p.m.

NDP

François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

—that we are still thinking about the way to deal with the issue?

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

I am sorry, your time has expired.

12:25 p.m.

NDP

François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

That's it.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

Mr. Kamp.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you Mr. Muldoon for your helpful presentation on the main estimates. We always appreciate it. I do have some questions on the main estimates but I only have five minutes. To be frank, I'm disappointed and concerned that one of our honourable members of this committee has said, I think, that the commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard hasn't been telling the truth about what happened in English Bay and how they responded, and so on.

In the five minutes I have, I wanted to give Commissioner Thomas an opportunity to walk us through the event in detail and the response of the coast guard to it. Along the way, in your presentation, can you tell us how, if at all, the response would have been different if Kitsilano had still been operational?

12:25 p.m.

Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Jody Thomas

Thank you for the question.

In terms of the incident itself and how it rolled out, at 4:48 p.m., Pacific Time, on April 8, the coast guard received the report of pollution in Vancouver harbour. It was described as a sheen. Port Metro Vancouver tasked a vessel to go look at that sheen, and the coast guard sent a vessel to English Bay.

Concurrently, we alerted emergency management partners, including provincial and municipal authorities. We started the process of alerting immediately, and had informed all of our partners by 9 p.m. that evening.

Initial reports from the scene indicated unrecoverable sheen, and we didn't really have a good indication of what exactly the complexity of the situation was until we had photos from overflights. It was an aircraft of opportunity that saw something looking unusual on the water. It was a flat night. The sun was setting, and it was hard to see the oil, the substance, on the water.

We went to the anchorage and looked to see what vessel it could be. There was no gushing spill. It was a slow leak from what we now know to be the Marathassa. The tide was changing, so the substance was moving quite significantly.

We contacted the master of the Marathassa. He denied it was him. We ended up boarding the vessel and inspecting, but because of the nature of the actual problem on the vessel, it was difficult to determine who was leaking. By nine o'clock, we had determined that the situation was significant and contracted with the WCMRC, which is the response organization and the responsible party for oil spills in Vancouver harbour, to come out and start addressing the incident.

The way we attacked the problem was twofold. We started by skimming, because at that point we still didn't know it was the Marathassa. Skimming the substance that was sitting on the water surface ensured that the substance didn't reach the beaches and it prevented a significant problem on the shores.

Over the evening, despite the master's refusal to accept responsibility, we boomed the vessel; 1,520 metres of boom were used. We boomed and skimmed at night. That was the first time we had ever done that. WCMRC has recently invested in new equipment to allow them to operate at night. That was a first for Vancouver harbour.

An incident command post was set up. We had an incident commander on Wednesday evening. By 10 a.m., Pacific Time, we had an incident command post with all partners established in Port Metro Vancouver. By the end of the day, on the 9th, we had a unified command, which means the coast guard was sharing the decision-making of how we were going to attack the problem with every partner who wanted to be involved. At that point it was the Ministry of the Environment, Environment Canada, Transport Canada, several first nations, the City of Vancouver, other municipalities, and multiple private sector partners, including the people who respond to dangers to wildlife, birds, mammals, and fish.

We focused our operations on the high-impact areas, based on the information we had from Environment Canada. We work as a partnership. The coast guard is the operational arm. Environment Canada and Transport Canada regulate and provide scientific information to us.

Based on information on the scene, on Thursday the 9th Transport Canada began to identify that it was in fact the Marathassa. At this point the master was still denying it was him. We sent samples of the substance to a lab to determine what the vessel had on board versus what was in the water, and to ensure it was a match. At that point we were able to identify unequivocally that it was the Marathassa.

Through the unified command, we continued to coordinate response efforts until today. At the height of the response, we had 75 personnel in the incident command post, and 100 personnel working on the water and the shorelines.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

Thank you very much.

Mr. Cleary.

12:30 p.m.

NDP

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks again to the witnesses.

When the minister was here, she made a comment on the seal hunt. She spoke about her “rock solid” support. I kind of snickered at that. I didn't mean that as a sign of disrespect, but considering the circumstances that we're in with the seal hunt.... Under this Conservative government, we've seen the most bans in history on Canadian seal products. That's not debatable. It's just a fact.

We've seen bans in Russia, the European Union, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Taiwan, and now we have this announcement in the budget of $5.7 million over five years to market Canadian seal products. That money comes in the context of`Carino, one of the largest buyers of seal products, which has decided not to buy any seal pelts this year. Instead, it's going to rely on its inventory. Also, the Canadian Sealers Association has closed its office.

So for the $5.7 million, while it's welcome, and while it's good news, I couldn't help but snicker when she talked about rock solid support.

I have two questions on that. Number one, where do you hope to get the markets? Where do you plan to focus that $5.7 million effort over five years? Also, will the money be spent directly by DFO or will the money be spent by the Canadian Sealers Association?

12:30 p.m.

Matthew King Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Just before you start, Tom, I'd like to respond to the first part of the comment.

I couldn't agree more. It's been very frustrating for DFO and the Government of Canada to see countries progressively banning seal imports. It's no surprise that Minister Shea sees this as quite unfair. I myself have spent time in China and in other countries in Asia directly questioning them on the rationale for the ban.

I think there may be forces that are obviously bigger than DFO at play, but I want to assure the member that we continue to go to these places and put our case forward, and we do see the ban as selective and ill advised.

12:30 p.m.

Tom Rosser Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

To elaborate just a little on that, in terms of our ongoing activities and those that we anticipate, they will be supported by the measures announced in the budget earlier this week. We had, as many committee members will be aware, challenged the European Union's ban on seal products. The—

12:30 p.m.

NDP

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

I'm sorry to interrupt but I only have a few minutes. My specific question was on the $5.7 million. Where do you hope to focus that money? What markets do you hope to penetrate? Who's going to spend the money, DFO or the Sealers Association?