Fisheries Committee on March 8th, 2016

[Kevin Stringer]

It's for all major projects in the country.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

All major projects, okay. And I see $2.2 million in royalties from intellectual properties. Can you explain that one to me?

[Marty Muldoon]

The way that our business model works, there are a few things that we do that actually generate income, and one of these is selling hydrographic charts for marine activities, boating charts, and the technology for others to sell those through royalty regimes. Each year at this time of the year, we'll come and collect the revenue that has been paid to the Government of Canada on our behalf, and that's all this is.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Your $434,219 for the ship-source oil source pollution fund cleanup doesn't seem like very much for the amount of cleanup that needs to go on. I'm looking at it thinking that's not even going to clean up one mess, so I question that number and where it came from.

[Marty Muldoon]

Correct. Jeffery will speak to that item, but that basically was some of what I was saying. We may or may not get fully refunded. In many cases we won't.

[Jeffery Hutchinson]

Normally at this point in the year we would actually see a higher number in that column. This year we've had an ongoing discussion, I'll say, with the ship-source oil source pollution fund about some of the legal requirements that go with the payout of the settlement, so there are actually several settlements that will bump into the next fiscal year, and we will recover that money.

That said, the last time I was here, you'll remember I spoke about the Coast Guard being funded at the point the fire bell rings. That was my analogy, that we're not funded for response. You've just said that it doesn't seem like very much and asked if it is enough. I would just underscore my comments from the last time we were here that it's an area where we do feel pressure and where we think some modernization would reinforce the polluter pay principle in Canada.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

With regard to the $23.3 million for incremental operating costs, you mentioned that it was for unplanned litigation settlements, unexpected events. Have you used that amount, and what happens if you don't? Do you switch it to other places? Does it just go back into general funds? Incremental funds means it's not something you'll definitely spend.

[Marty Muldoon]

That's an excellent question.

Normally you would want to have some accountability at the end of the journey, and we're two and a half weeks from the end of the journey this particular year. I can tell you, without a doubt, if we hadn't received that investment, we would have had to curtail operations somewhere in order to end the year with the right colour of ink on the page.

We're at the point where we have fully exploited that investment. At the start of the year, you have to forecast what the pressures are, which may materialize as slightly bigger or slightly less. Basically, it all came to fruition, and we're grateful we had the investment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

Mr. Donnelly, three minutes, please.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Stringer, I'd like to come back to your comment about your confidence in achieving the targets. I'll leave the 10% and just focus on the 5% by next year on marine protected areas. Given that we're at less than 1%, I'm just wondering what you think the biggest hurdles or challenges for the department are.

I know that you work with Parks Canada and Environment Canada, but obviously the oceans department, with the Oceans Act, has a significant role. What do you see as the biggest challenges to achieving that 5% next year?

[Kevin Stringer]

There are a lot.

The first point I would make is the one that you just made: we're not alone on this. Parks Canada is a major partner on this. In fact, of the 1% that is protected now, Parks is about half and we're about half. Then there a lot of smaller players. There's also Environment Canada, with migratory bird sanctuaries and those types of things, including other wildlife areas that are in the oceans.

There will probably be maybe three broad strategies—west coast, east coast, north—and they will be unique. We'll have to look at the types of things we'll do. The first is making sure we have the right strategy, and the second is getting the right players around the table. The minister has met with environmental groups, indigenous groups, the fishing industry, and other industry in all of those areas, and talked about engagement. It's about setting the table appropriately.

A huge amount of work has already been done by science to identify ecologically and biologically significant areas. Some of the key stakeholders and environmental groups have done a lot of work as well, as have indigenous groups, provinces, and other partners. It's a question of very quickly pulling together all of that material, identifying the areas we would want to protect, and the measures we would want to apply in those different areas. It's not easy.

So there's all of that to do. It really is about getting the partnerships right. We've established a federal-provincial task group on this. We've pulled together environmental groups in a couple of forums. We've talked to indigenous groups, we've talked to the fishing industry, and it's a question of now getting those things together, pulling together the information we have.

There's one other thing: when exactly is “2017”? Is it January 1, 2017? Is it December 31, 2017? Is it June 8, World Oceans Day, 2017? At this point it makes a big difference.

There are lots of things to consider.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I'm sure the government will choose whichever date is best to announce the best plan, but I would probably take the full year, if I could.

Thanks for explaining some of the hurdles. It involves working together, co-operating.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Now, gentlemen, thank you so very much for joining us today—Mr. Swerdfager, Mr. Stringer, Mr. Muldoon, Mr. Hutchinson.

Since we are now in the position of completed discussions on estimates, we have some voting to do, which of course is necessary.

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(5), the supplementary estimates (C) for 2015-16, votes 1c, 5c, and 10c under Fisheries and Oceans were referred to the committee on Friday, February 19, 2016, as you all recall.

FISHERIES AND OCEANS Vote 1c—Operating expenditures..........$51,423,443 Vote 5c—Capital expenditures..........$126,856,438 Vote 10c—Grants and contributions..........$2,690,000

(Votes 1c, 5c, and 10c agreed to on division)

Shall I report these supplementary estimates (C) 2015-16 to the House of Commons?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We only have 30 minutes left. Rather than take a break, let's proceed into committee business.

Since we're all here, what I'm going to do for the sake of scheduling is go over the schedule once more. To get into May and June, as I said earlier, let's just recap what we're planning to do in March and April. We do have a full schedule for March and April. Following that, we can discuss what to do in May and June. Keep in mind, we have one study to do that we've passed and haven't discussed yet. That would be the northen cod study that Mr. McDonald brought forward.

Mr. Donnelly, go ahead.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I have a point of order. I didn't mention it during the presentation, but normally we have the presentations on the screens in front of us, and I'm wondering if there was a reason that we didn't get the department's deck on the screen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I"m told the witnesses just offered to bring the decks. Next time I'll ask for that to happen. We'll bring it up when we talk to witnesses if they have presentations. We'll see what happens.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I always find it helpful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I agree with you.

Back to the schedule.

Let's go to March and let's finish this off. Today, we have committee business on supplementary estimates (C). On March 10 we have our first witnesses for the study on Comox.That's up to eight we have so far. We'll have five witnesses in total at that point.

March 22, the House is open, but the budget will be taking place in the House of Commons, so we've decided that we will not have a meeting for the sake of the budget.

Something has come up, or not. On March 24 we provisionally put in that we wanted the minister to come in to discuss the mandate letter. We've been informed that the minister is not available on that particular day. He is available on two dates that I'll talk about in just a moment, but first, let us deal with the 24th. It is the Thursday before Good Friday. In the past, sometimes we've used a Friday schedule on a Thursday, but my understanding is, after discussions with House officers, that this is not going to be the case. We're going to stick with the Thursday schedule, but it is the day before Good Friday. Do we want to have a meeting at that point, given that it is the Thursday before Good Friday?

Any discussion? Would you like to think about it and I can move on to the next day?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Can we talk about what we would be doing? We didn't schedule Comox for that day because we were hopeful the minister would be here, which he won't be. I'm happy to come and have a committee meeting, but I don't want to invent a study or something to look at just to say we were here.

The minister is not available and I don't know that we can bump the Comox stuff forward. The only reason we would want to meet is to advance the second Comox meeting to that date. If that's not an option, then let's not be silly about it.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I agree with Mark. I only see a few of the witnesses that we've asked, so I don't know if there's a report about the other witnesses who were contacted. Are they available or are they not available?

We could also put some time in there to ask questions of the witnesses. Right now it seems that they're just giving presentations, unless that's not the case.

Is there an hour scheduled for presentations and then an hour for questions?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Are you talking about the witnesses on Comox?

Yes, there's going to be a question and answer round. That's my understanding.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

That would be an option if the minister wasn't available and the witnesses were, to move that into—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

To bring them in on the Thursday before Good Friday?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

That's a loaded question, Mr. Chair.