FOPO Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, April 3, 2003

1100

The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.))

Ms. Susan Cartwright (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

1105

1110

1115

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

1120

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Ms. Susan Cartwright

The Chair

Ms. Susan Cartwright

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

1125

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Ursula Menke (Deputy Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Ursula Menke

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Ursula Menke

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Ursula Menke

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Ursula Menke

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Ursula Menke

1130

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Ursula Menke

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Patrick Chamut (Assistant Deputy Minister, Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

1135

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ)

Ms. Susan Cartwright

1140

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Ms. Susan Cartwright

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Ms. Susan Cartwright

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Ms. Susan Cartwright

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Ms. Susan Cartwright

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Ms. Susan Cartwright

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Ms. Susan Cartwright

The Chair

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.)

1145

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright (Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

The Chair

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

The Chair

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

The Chair

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

1150

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

The Chair

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.)

Mr. Patrick Chamut

1155

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

1200

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. Andy Burton

1205

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton

Ms. Ursula Menke

Mr. Andy Burton

Ms. Ursula Menke

The Chair

Ms. Ursula Menke

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP)

1210

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

The Chair

Ms. Sue Kirby (Assistant Deputy Minister, Oceans, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

The Chair

Ms. Sue Kirby

The Chair

Ms. Sue Kirby

1215

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.)

Mme Ursula Menke

Mr. Georges Farrah

Mme Ursula Menke

1220

Mr. Georges Farrah

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

1225

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Ursula Menke

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Ursula Menke

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Ursula Menke

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Ursula Menke

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Ursula Menke

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Ursula Menke

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Ursula Menke

Mr. John Cummins

1230

Ms. Ursula Menke

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Ursula Menke

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Ursula Menke

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Ursula Menke

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Ursula Menke

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Ursula Menke

The Chair

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.)

1235

The Chair

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

The Chair

Ms. Susan Cartwright

The Chair

Ms. Ursula Menke

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton

1240

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton

The Chair

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

Mr. Andy Burton

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Ursula Menke

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Ursula Menke

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Patrick Chamut

1245

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Ursula Menke

The Chair

Ms. Ursula Menke

The Chair

Ms. Ursula Menke

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Ursula Menke

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Susan Cartwright

Mr. Peter Stoffer

1250

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Ursula Menke

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Ursula Menke

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Ursula Menke

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Ursula Menke

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Bill Matthews

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

Mr. Bill Matthews

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

1255

Mr. Bill Matthews

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

Mr. Bill Matthews

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Patrick Chamut

1300

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Ms. Sue Kirby

The Chair

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

The Chair

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

The Chair

Ms. Ursula Menke

The Chair

Ms. Susan Cartwright

The Chair

Ms. Susan Cartwright

The Chair

Ms. Susan Cartwright

The Chair

Ms. Susan Cartwright

The Chair

Ms. Susan Cartwright

The Chair

Ms. Susan Cartwright

Mr. Patrick Chamut

1305

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Ms. Susan Cartwright

The Chair

Ms. Susan Cartwright

The Chair

Ms. Ursula Menke

The Chair

Ms. Ursula Menke

The Chair

Ms. Ursula Menke

The Chair

Ms. Ursula Menke

The Chair

1310

Ms. Susan Cartwright

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

NUMBER 027

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, April 3, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1100)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.)): Good morning.

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) and the order of reference from the House of Commons dated Wednesday, February 26, 2003, our committee is considering votes 1, 5, and 10 under Fisheries and Oceans in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004.

We have with us today Susan Cartwright, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Patrick Chamut, Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries Management, Wendy Watson-Wright, Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Ursula Menke, Deputy Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard, Sue Kirby, Assistant Deputy Minister, Oceans, and Marc Whittingham, director general, review directorate--a very impressive list of witnesses.

I understand, Madam Cartwright, you have a statement, but before you make it, let me make two points. I'm not going to literally interrupt you in mid-sentence, but as soon as I see nine members, I'm going to interrupt the proceedings at the most auspicious occasion to take two quick votes. There'll be no need to go in camera. If I don't see nine members, well, too bad, we don't take the vote.

Also, we had a number of questions on Tuesday to which our witnesses agreed that they would try to provide answers by today. Perhaps that's dealt with in your statement, and if it is, great, if it isn't, maybe somebody on the panel could let us know where those investigations are.

With that, welcome everybody. I'll ask Madam Cartwright to proceed.

Ms. Susan Cartwright (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't think in my opening statement the questions of Tuesday are dealt with, but I could come to those immediately after the statement, if that is acceptable.

Good morning, honourable members. It's a great pleasure to join you here today.

[Translation]

Good afternoon, Honourable Members. It is a great pleasure to join you here today.

[English]

I know James Wheelhouse, the ADM of Corporate Services, was here on Tuesday to present the finer details of DFO's main estimates for the coming year, so without duplicating our presentations, I'd like to make a brief opening statement today touching on a few departmental priorities for the coming year. I'd also like to outline our departmental assessment and alignment project or DAAP.

But I'd like to begin by thanking this committee for your ongoing commitment to Canada's fisheries and oceans sector. Your views and advice are well respected by the department, and we take responding to these views very seriously. For example, you raised concerns on Tuesday about our reporting methods. As you know, there's a broader government initiative in place to improve how departments report to Parliament and to reinforce accountability and transparency. The government is working with Parliament and the Auditor General to do this, and DFO is fully supportive of this initiative. At the departmental level, I'd like to assure you that we're taking your concerns in this area seriously and we'll try to be as responsive to them as possible. Another example is your request on Tuesday for more detail on how DFO evaluates its programs. In our view, evaluation is the natural responsibility of every manager in the department, and it's a key tool in ensuring that our programs and services respond effectively to the needs of Canadians. Mark Whittingham, director general of our review directorate is here and can answer any questions you have in more detail, and my colleagues and I would be happy to respond to any specific evaluation issues in our respective areas.

We've also got a number of other challenges to deal with that will require your views and advice in the near future. To help us meet some of these challenges, the recent federal budget contained some very good news for DFO. The Canadian Coast Guard is receiving $94.6 million over two years, which will be invested in the Canadian Coast Guard's fleet and shore-based infrastructure and will help us to plan for the recapitalization of the fleet and shore-based infrastructures.

Á (1105)

DFO's aboriginal fisheries program is receiving $12 million over two years, to be invested in a soon to be announced programming initiative, which will involve close consultation with aboriginal groups. As you know, we're making significant progress in this area. On the east coast we're continuing to manage the implications of the Supreme Court's Marshall decision, and on the west coast we're finding significant pressure to deal with aboriginal fishing claims. We're following the situation closely. Aboriginal law continues to evolve, and it's difficult to predict what the Supreme Court will rule in the future, but we'll need to be prepared to adapt accordingly and to react to any legal reality.

The budget also allocated $33 million over two years to implement the Species at Risk Act. DFO will be working with other departments on the distribution of this funding, which is in addition to the $180 million announced in the 2000 budget. As this initiative moves forward, our department will have significant obligations and responsibilities. Indeed, the act has received royal assent and is moving closer to becoming law. Clearly, it has some potential implications for our fisheries industry, particularly the issue of by-catch. Among others, fisheries for west coast salmon and east coast wolffishwill be affected. DFO is committed to working closely with industry as we collectively adapt to this new reality.

I'd like to turn now to a number of issues the department is addressing.

[Translation]

Take the Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review, for instance. As you know, the Review is the centrepiece of our efforts to guide fisheries management into the future. The policy framework is nearly complete, and will be released later this year. On the West Coast, we're also moving forward on policy renewal, particularly for wild salmon stocks.

The situation with certain Atlantic cod stocks is also presenting us with some important challenges. I'd like to thank those of you who were part of the Newfoundland and Labrador all-Party Committee for putting your recommendations forward. I understand the Committee met recently with you to present these recommendations. I can assure you that the Minister is considering them carefully and in detail.

As you know, the outlook for these three stocks is not very promising. Moving forward won't be easy. First and foremost, DFO's responsibility is to ensure the conservation of these stocks. Also, the governement as a whole needs to remain sensitive to the needs of communities. I can assure you that both priorities will be closely examined as the Minister prepares to make a final decision in the coming weeks.

Á (1110)

[English]

We are also focused on continuing to manage straddling stocks on the high seas and working with the international community to strengthen NAFO. I'd like to thank the committee for its recent report on this issue. As you know, overfishing is a serious problem that jeopardizes the very future of our industry. We need to work with our partners, both domestically and internationally, to deal with this serious challenge. I can assure you that we are taking this issue very seriously. The minister has said repeatedly that it's a key priority for him, and in the coming weeks he will be travelling to Europe to press Canada's case for strengthening the management regime.

The development of a sustainable aquaculture industry in Canada is another key priority for DFO. It's an objective we think can be achieved without compromising our protection of wild stocks. As a result of DFO's aquaculture action plan announced in 2000, we have now developed and implemented important policy, programming, and regulatory initiatives to better support the industry's environmental sustainability and international competitiveness, resulting in increased opportunities for Canadians.

A recent and concrete example of DFO's commitment to the co-existence of aquaculture in the harvest fishery is our pink salmon action plan. Our plan complements precautionary action taken by the province and the industry to manage sea lice on farms, including a migratory corridor for wild salmon. It also involves research to better understand the factors leading to the decline in pink salmon in Broughton Archipelago. I know this is also an important issue for this committee, and we look forward to your upcoming report.

Aquaculture is a good example of the increased activity we're seeing in our oceans. Beyond the fishery, we are also seeing energy development, eco-tourism, and a range of other demands on our ocean resources. Canada's Oceans Act and Canada's ocean strategy provide the means for DFO to work closely with its partners and with the increasingly diverse range of stakeholders to help ensure that the needs of all ocean interests are managed in an integrated fashion.

This range of ocean activity also means increasing pressure to conserve and protect fish habitat. Under our fish habitat management program, DFO is working to achieve no net loss of fish habitat. Over the coming year we'll be strengthening the program through staff training and operational guideline development, streamlining the project review process, and seeking partnership arrangements with governments and industry.

[Translation]

Invasive aquatic species are another challenge we are dealing with. These species have generated much scientific and public interests throughout North America—as well as interests from this Committee. I understand you've held a number of sessions on this issue recently. We're now working closely with our federal and provincial partners to develop a comprehensive approach to dealing with this significant challenge.

Honourable Members, all of the issues I have mentioned today reflect the need for timely, accurate science. DFO is a science-based department. And as you can appreciate, it is very difficult to meet every demand. Our science resources are limited, and there are many competiting priorities to balance.

[English]

This brings me to our departmental assessment and alignment project, or DAAP. Simply put, the DAAP is about doing our homework, so that we position ourselves better to meet the priorities of Canadians, while living within our means. It's about managing for results, so that we continue to provide Canadians with the services they need, while managing tax dollars well and responsibly. At DFO the status quo is not sustainable. Our ability to sustain the delivery of quality services to Canadians is undermined by constant demands for more and new services, while resources remain limited. At the same time, we have a number of new policy initiatives moving forward to implementation. The Atlantic fisheries policy review, Canada's ocean strategy, and Canadian Coast Guard modernization are some key examples. Under the DAAP, we're setting a course for the future that responds to the needs of Canadians. We also want to take advantage of every possible opportunity for transformation, finding new and innovative ways to deliver our programs and services more efficiently and effectively.

As you know, reviewing programs and reallocating resources from lower to higher priorities became an imperative with the recent federal budget. All departments will be expected to review their programs for efficiency, effectiveness, and relevance to Canadians on a five-year cycle. With the DAAP, DFO is well positioned to respond to this imperative. The work we're doing under the DAAP will help us to address the challenges I laid out for you today and reinforce DFO's position as a strong federal player on behalf of our clients and stakeholders.

As you know, the recent federal budget also made a commitment to reallocate a total of $1 billion for 2003-2004 from lower- to higher-priority programs. This signals a decisive move towards the culture of reallocation. While no decisions have been made in regard to DFO's contribution, we will be working closely with Treasury Board and following its direction. Reviewing programs to ensure that they remain effective, efficient, and relevant to Canadians is our new way of doing business. This is good modern management, and DFO is committed to responding in the interests of our clients and stakeholders, and also our employees.

Honourable members, these are some of the issues and priorities DFO is facing in the year to come. I'm sure you have questions for us and comments on them, so without further ado, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity we have today. My colleagues and I would be pleased to respond to questions you may have.

Thank you.

Á (1115)

The Chair: Thank you.

Now I'll just take a short break, so that we can deal with these two trip matters while I have a quorum--and thanks, everybody, for coming so that we can vote.

Everybody should have in front of them the budget requests for the travel from June 14 to June 27 on the subject of the coast guard and custodial management and for the travel budget of October 24 to November 7 on the subject of the coast guard.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): I just have one question, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: I'm not objecting to the travel in June, but what I'm wondering is where and when on our schedule we are going to complete the Fraser River study. How are we going to do it, when we've got a previous chunk of travel lined up, and now this other one?

The Chair: You'll notice that the travel in June is when the House isn't sitting. We'll start with that. As for the travel in October, I'll make a commitment to you that before we go to Australia, we'll certainly have the Fraser River matter done. I believe we have a day or two at the end of April scheduled to talk about that and give further direction to our researchers to come up with a draft. I'm just reviewing the material to get myself up to speed, including your numerous e-mails. When I'm ready, I think close to the end of April, right after we get back from the break, we'll start talking about it and giving some direction to our researchers. That's the best information I can give you at this point. I don't believe either of these trips will in any way affect the preparation of that report.

Mr. John Cummins: In other words, the report, in your estimation, isn't going to be done before summer.

The Chair: Probably not, but that depends to a great extent on whether we can achieve relative consensus quickly. We'll soon find out about that.

Á (1120)

Mr. John Cummins: Until we see the report, we can't do that.

The Chair: Absolutely correct.

Mr. John Cummins: Yet you're not going to give direction until the end of April.

The Chair: Well, that's two weeks. We're breaking next week. You're on the steering committee, and we've discussed these issues and set up the times we're going to discuss these various issues. The steering committee agreed, and the committee adopted an agenda. At the end of April we'll begin our consideration of that report. As you remember, we're having our clerk prepare a summary of evidence, because many of the members of the committee were not here for that study, so they'll need to be brought up to speed on what the evidence was and what the recommendations were. Only after that can the committee intelligently give instructions to our researchers.

Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Easter had at least a portion of a draft last September, perhaps the September before. I thought you had a draft in March. I thought you'd already seen a draft.

The Chair: I may very well have had, but as you know we've been doing numerous things, and there's only so much time in the day. I scheduled my time in such a way that we can do things in accordance with the agenda we've adopted in this committee. I assure you that we'll get to the thing at the end of April, and we'll carry on diligently, as we always do in this committee, throughout May and June. We'll do the best we can to complete the matter as quickly as possible.

The purpose of bringing the travel budgets forward is very simple. The liaison committee, of which I am a member, is taking an extremely detailed look at all travel budgets, quite appropriately. One of the questions they ask is, did the committee approve the travel budget? I want to be able to say, not only did they approve the travel budget in general, they approved the travel budget in specifics. So here are the travel budgets with dollars and cents, right down to the last penny. Are there any questions with respect to the budget request dealing with the trip June 14 to 27? Would someone move that we adopt that? Mr. Stoffer.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: As to the trip October 24 to November 7, after discussing matters with Mr. Stoffer's office and looking at the prices of a trip to Australia etc., we've pared this down as best we can. Our clerk has also discussed it with the clerk of the liaison committee, so that we can bring it in line with the appropriate averages of all the committees. Would someone move it? Mr. Matthews.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Mr. Cummins, I noticed your hand was up in opposition. I'm telling you right now, if there isn't unanimity, we can forget about it. If you don't want to do it, that's fine with me. There must be unanimity, because if I hear Mr. Williams at the liaison committee saying his members don't want the trip, I say, fine, that's it. So you've got to make up your mind. You don't have to make it up today, but I want unanimity, or we don't go. It's that simple.

Mr. John Cummins: The point is that this Fraser River thing has been outstanding now for a year and a half. I don't see the will yet. You demonstrate to me some will to get that report done.

The Chair: That's fine, okay by me.

Madam Cartwright, we were going to give you an opportunity to answer any questions you may have answers to from Tuesday.

Ms. Susan Cartwright: Mr. Chairman, I understand that James Wheelhouse, when he was here on Tuesday, undertook to respond to you. I don't yet have those responses, but they will be provided in writing. I understand that there were also some questions James didn't feel were within his purview, and the suggestion was that those might be asked again today, when we had a larger group of people here who would be able to answer for you.

The Chair: I can't presuppose what members will ask, but whatever questions have been asked, we'd like an answer to. If they happen to be asked again, fine, if not, they're on the record.

Ms. Susan Cartwright: If not, an answer will be provided.

The Chair: Wonderful, thank you.

So we'll start with Mr. Cummins for ten minutes.

Mr. John Cummins: For information, Mr. Chairman, with the questions we asked last time, there's no need to take the time again to ask those today. We don't know who is prepared to answer what anyway, that's part of the problem.

Á (1125)

The Chair: That's up to you. If you wish to ask a question, go ahead, but I've just established that all questions will be answered in due course by the appropriate people.

Mr. John Cummins: I've just got a comment on the opening remarks from the department. I didn't find them all that helpful. I'm not even sure they would have been helpful for a Chamber of Commerce. They certainly aren't very helpful for a House of Commons committee that is charged with the responsibility of examining the estimates.

I would consider asking for the budget allocation for the purchase of signs to direct pink salmon through the migratory corridor in the Broughton Archipelago, but I'm afraid that I might get an answer that there was a budget allocation for that, so I'm not going to ask that question.

I'd like to go to the coast guard, and I'd like to know if there is a budget allocation for a second hovercraft in the Quebec region.

Ms. Ursula Menke (Deputy Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): There is at the moment no finalized allocation for a second hovercraft in the region. We require the approval of Treasury Board, and we have not received it yet, but it is in the plans.

Mr. John Cummins: It's in the plans?

Ms. Ursula Menke: Yes, for this year.

Mr. John Cummins: Is there a budget allocation for a new hovercraft in the British Columbia region?

Ms. Ursula Menke: Not for this year. With the budget for this year, we are in the process of purchasing a used hovercraft.

Mr. John Cummins: How are these determinations made on what gets new, what gets used? What are the criteria here?

Ms. Ursula Menke: Our tendency is to buy new. The reason we have gone for a used hovercraft in British Columbia is that we wanted to replace it quickly. We are planning to purchase a new one for British Columbia, but that takes some time to develop, because these are specialized craft and it takes a while to get them built. So we can't get them that quickly, and that's why we're purchasing a used one for the interim period.

Mr. John Cummins: I understand the coast guard has advised the minister that it would take 45 to 50 months to get a new hovercraft in Vancouver. In fact, the manufacturer tells us it's 12 to 14 months. So could you explain the discrepancy between the opinion of the coast guard and the actual fact of 12 to 14 months from the manufacturer?

Ms. Ursula Menke: I can't explain that discrepancy, because I don't know where it's coming from right now. All of our information is that it takes a considerable time.

Mr. John Cummins: There is one that is being replaced in the Quebec region, and coast guard information tells me that it has a expected life yet of 10 years. That hovercraft in Vancouver was taken out of service last October, so there isn't a back-up, a second hovercraft available in Vancouver. You're searching the world for a used one, you're going to build a new hovercraft for Quebec, and yet the one you're replacing in Quebec, according to your records, has a life expectancy yet of 10 years. How is that? How do you explain that discrepancy?

Ms. Ursula Menke: I can't comment on the life expectancy of the hovercraft in Quebec. I don't know if it's a 10-year life expectancy. I doubt it is that long. Obviously, we have lead times for the planning of these purchases, and it will be some time before that hovercraft arrives in Quebec.

Á (1130)

Mr. John Cummins: The information is information you supplied to the minister. The coast guard advised the minister of these facts, this was part of the documentation that was presented to him in the decision-making process, so why is it that you can't answer that question today?

Ms. Ursula Menke: It's just because I don't happen to have it at my fingertips. I could confirm it for you.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins, do you want the witness to confirm it for you?

Mr. John Cummins: I'd certainly appreciate that. I think it would be important if that were the case.

The Chair: Fine, then, she's undertaken to do so.

Mr. John Cummins: What I'd like to get to briefly is the budgeting. In the last session I asked questions about the gross budget under fisheries management. I asked if that could be broken down, and I wonder if that would be possible today. It is in table 3-1 of the estimates.

Mr. Patrick Chamut (Assistant Deputy Minister, Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I'd like to try to take the committee through a breakdown of the overall fisheries management budget. I know that was a question that came up here on Tuesday, and I would like to just take you through an assessment of how the money is distributed.

If you look at the--

Mr. John Cummins: If I could just interrupt for a minute, the question was asked on Tuesday, and rather than a reiteration of what's in the budget, can you produce some paper, Mr. Chamut? That would be most helpful. Then we could get along and examine the detail of it. I'm not particularly interested in sitting here for the next seven or eight minutes, with all respect, getting the detail. You should have it on paper, I think, and present it to us, if that would be possible.

The Chair: In other words, Mr. Cummins, if I understand correctly, if Mr. Chamut doesn't have it on paper, you'll be satisfied if he gets it on paper for us at a later date, and you'll carry on with your questioning.

Mr. John Cummins: Then I'll maybe ask some detailed questions about it.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Chamut, do you have anything on paper you could give us today? All right. Why don't we ask you, if you don't mind, to prepare something within a reasonable period of time and just submit it to us? Our committee is going to examine the estimates with witnesses, and quite probably, assuming we have enough time over the course of the year, we're going to do follow-ups and see what happened, see how estimates have become realities, and continue to ask questions. So this is very unlikely to be our only examination of the estimates, either before or after the votes in May. So if you don't mind, Mr. Chamut, because the questioner has asked that, put it in writing for us and submit it to us at a later date. We can examine it, and if we need to ask you to come back sometime, I'm sure we can arrange a reasonable period of time. Okay?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: If that's the wish of the committee, I'd be quite pleased to put it down in writing. I did want the committee to be aware that I was prepared to talk about how the budget for the fisheries management sector is split. I would be quite prepared to go through that with the committee at a later time if that's desired.

The Chair: Very good. For the benefit of other members, how long would that presentation take you, do you think?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: I could go through it in about three minutes.

Á (1135)

The Chair: Then perhaps another questioner will give you that opportunity. But right now it's Mr. Cummins turn, and you've still got three minutes, Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: That fisheries management budget, I understand, in the year 2003-2004 is going to be $373.7 million. How much of that is direct transfers to aboriginal groups?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Within that there are two main amounts that pertain to aboriginal people, the money under the Marshall program and money under the AFS program. If I can speak in round numbers, we're talking about $35 million in the AFS program. The Marshall program amounts to a total of $145 million. There's a third component, which was mentioned in the opening remarks by Ms. Cartwright, some new money that has been assigned to us in the budget for a new aboriginal program framework, which is $4 million in 2003-2004. Those would be the main, almost exclusive, components associated with transfers to first nations.

If I can make one final clarification, the vast majority of the Marshall money, as you know, is dedicated to purchase of licence, retirement of that licence, then transfer to a first nation. So it's not, in effect, a direct transfer of money, but rather money that's used to transfer commercial licences to first nations as part of our treaty obligation.

Mr. John Cummins: Under this fisheries management budget, then, how much was allocated to the Pacific region in 2002-2003, and how much is allocated in 2003-2004?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: The region will receive a total of $58.5 million for the programs run by the sector in the Pacific.

Mr. John Cummins: That's 2003-2004?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Yes.

Mr. John Cummins: Do you have it for 2002-2003?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: I do not, but obviously, that is something we'd be happy to provide.

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll go now to Monsieur Roy for five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for being here this morning. Last week, I asked a question to which I couldn't get an answer. I was referring to a document that was provided to us, the Report on Plans and Priorities for 2003-2004. It said in that report, on page 27 : “DFO will continue to advance Canadian international trade programs“. It was about opening new markets in the main export areas for goods and services.

I wanted to know how much money DFO is dedicating to the exploration and development of new markets for the products we make here. I didn't get an answer to my question last time. Could we have an answer this morning?

[English]

Ms. Susan Cartwright: There are two areas in which we dedicate resources. The first is what we refer to as trade promotion and international business development. That is formally a responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, but we do work actively to support our stakeholders. Last year, for the first time, fish and seafood product exporters had access to funding under what was called at its inception the agricultural policy framework. We believe Canadian exporters will have had access to roughly $750,000 of export support in the last fiscal year. We hope they will be successful in securing twice that amount in the coming year. Those amounts I can't confirm for you, because they haven't yet been approved finally, but we are very hopeful that they will have access to that kind of support for their export market activities. We dedicate within the department about $125,000 worth of operations money. We have one and a half FTEs dedicated to that part of the function.

The other activity in which we are also very much involved is trade policy work, which is not directly trade promotion, but does ensure that we have markets available to Canadian exporters. We have four FTEs dedicated to that function, with an operations budget of about $80,000. They do technical analysis of trade agreements. We're active, for example, in the current round of negotiations in the WTO, as well as a range of regional and bilateral free trade agreements. We also represent interests of a number of industry associations, such as the FCC and the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance, as well as the fish and seafood product sectoral advisory group on international trade, SAGIT, in fora such as the OECD, the FAO, and APEC.

That's a summary. If more detailed information is required, I'd be happy to provide it.

Á (1140)

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: I wanted to have the total amount of money, because you've given us separate figures. Of course, you also have to work with International Trade in this field, but what is the total amount that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is dedicating to export development?

[English]

Ms. Susan Cartwright: It's five and a half FTEs, and a budget of roughly $200,000 in operations.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: It is very little.

[English]

Ms. Susan Cartwright: I think you need to see that, frankly, in light of the fact that it's not our department that has responsibility for that, it is Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. We work very closely with them and with Foreign Affairs and International Trade to ensure that the fish and seafood sector is well represented.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Have you any idea of the budget allocated by the Agriculture Department for seafood export support?

[English]

Ms. Susan Cartwright: No, I don't. My belief, though, is that it would not be disaggregated by product line.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: And what about International Trade?

[English]

Ms. Susan Cartwright: I don't have that with me today, I'm sorry.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy : It would be interesting to know what efforts are being made to market our products internationally. It would be good to have an idea, even if it's not really disaggregated. We must have a good idea. When you go to the Boston Seafood Show, you don't get there with a pound of beef. It seems to me that we should have an idea.

[English]

Ms. Susan Cartwright: If you look at the resources of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, for example, again, they would not be broken out by sector, by product, but you would have the resources of all our trade commissioners and commercial officers in all our missions abroad, plus the work of the headquarters units. There's work performed by Industry Canada in the regional offices across Canada preparing new exporters for export market activities. Agriculture and Agri-Food have a sizeable investment in their international and trade sector, which works exclusively on promoting agriculture and food products. But again, I don't know that they would be able to provide it by product line. Certainly, I'm not in the position to do so this morning, I'm afraid.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: One last question.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Are our export promotion efforts aimed mainly at the United States, Japan or…?

[English]

Ms. Susan Cartwright: Oh no, they're worldwide. We're guided by where market opportunities exist for fish and seafood products and where the industry is interested in exploring markets. It's true that the United States represents still by far our largest export market, but we're actively exploring, and we continue to advocate and market in Asia and in Europe as well as in the United States.

The Chair: Merci.

Mr. Provenzano, for ten minutes.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's probably obvious, but I'm just wondering under what budget category we would find items relating to studying control of invasive species.

Á (1145)

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright (Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): That would be under the science category, but it wouldn't show up very well.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Specifically, would sea lamprey control be under that same category?

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: It is in the science budget, yes.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Would we have that kind of detailed information available here?

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: It is $6.1 million.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Is that an increase or decrease from--

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: That's the same, that's steady in respect of sea lamprey control and our contribution to the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Is the $6.1 million consistent with the A base funding?

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: That is the A base funding.

The Chair: Sorry to interrupt, Carmen, but I was distracted for a second. It's $6.1 million for what?

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: Sea lamprey control.

The Chair: That's per year and strictly for sea lamprey control?

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: There's an agreement between the United States and Canada with respect to the sea lamprey control program.

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: Yes, there is.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Is the level of contribution consistent with the arrangements we are committed to under that agreement?

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: The level of contribution was set according to a percentage formula a number of years ago, and these were guidelines. So it is consistent with that. In any given year, for example, sometimes the U.S. has gone down or up, so that would alter the percentage, but it is absolutely consistent with what we agreed to contribute.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Would you be aware of the amount of the budget request for that item? The amount that was approved is $6.1 million.

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: That's what we have traditionally requested. That's what we have traditionally allocated to the sea lamprey control.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Can you say what the overall funding is for studying control of invasive species within that budget category?

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: We've estimated it at towards $8 million for invasives throughout the country.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: So there's $6.1 million allocated towards sea lamprey control, and something under $2 million allocated for study and control of all other invasive species?

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: Yes. What we reported at the standing committee of March 19, which was specifically related to invasive species, is that currently we're working very hard with the provinces. There's a Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers task group specifically looking at aquatic invasive species. The committee has met twice so far. We will be putting together a plan and a strategy nationally for both marine and fresh water invasive species. There is an international conference we're sponsoring in June, and the plan is expected to be done within a year, so we will know much more at that time.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I think my final question would be again relating to studying control of invasive species. Are there other budgetary categories that contain moneys that would relate to study and control of invasive species, or is that it, $1.9 million over and above the sea lamprey?

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: It's around that. It's a little bit fuzzy. As I mentioned at the last meeting, the bivalve aquaculture industry, mussels and oysters, are experiencing a lot of difficulties with aquatic invasive species, so some of the work we do on aquaculture would actually overlap with what we do on invasives. So that's an approximation, but it would be predominantly in science. That's just the DFO budget. Transport Canada also does work on ballast water and invasives. I don't have their budget figures, but we do work very closely with them on the ballast water issue and aquatic invasive species.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I made an assumption that the $8 million would be spent on programs relating to study and control of invasive species in the Great Lakes. Are we suggesting that the $8 million is for study and control of invasive species that include sea lamprey everywhere?

Á (1150)

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: The $6.1 million is very specific on sea lamprey, and that is in the Great Lakes, for certain. The rest would be across Canada. Some of it--and I wouldn't be able to break it out at this point--certainly would be aimed at fresh water invasives, and our biggest problem right now with fresh water invasives is in the Great Lakes.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Matthews, do you want to jump in for five minutes?

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Yes, sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank the officials for coming, and I want to follow the line of questioning on fisheries management, particularly to Mr. Chamut.

The first thing that I looked at there, Mr. Chamut, was the $373.7 million for fisheries management, and then for 2005-2006 the figure is $228 million, a decline of $145 million. So I'd like you to say what's going to cause that drastic decline in fisheries management expenditures. I realize you just went through the aboriginal planning funding, which I think amounted to $184 million, which leaves $189 in fisheries management for this year. So could you explain the drastic drop, and then give us the breakdown of your fisheries management budget you have with you?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: The largest single component in the fisheries management budget today is the money for the Marshall response. The Marshall response was approved as a three-year program. When that program ends, effectively at the end of this year, although there is an opportunity for carrying money forward, we will see a very large reduction in the budget. It is entirely due to the ending of the Marshall program. I want to be clear that the Marshall program will continue in some form, as we continue to meet our obligations, but there will be a very large reduction of the money that was assigned for things like acquiring licences to transfer to first nations to meet our obligation.

What I'd like to do, and I hope it will be useful for members of the committee, is talk about how that $373 million is actually spent. It looks like a very large amount of money, but there are a number of very large components in it that I think it would be worthwhile to explain.

Essentially, the money is for the operational programs delivered by the sector, which I can describe if members wish. It also includes things like employee benefit packages and money for Marshall. So if we start with the amount of $373 million, I'd first take off $19.5 million for employee benefits. Those are things that are non-discretionary, superannuation and things of that nature. That leaves us with $353 million. The next slice that I'd suggest we take out is $145 million for Marshall. That, effectively, leaves $207 million for what I would call direct resource management costs. The $207 million is essentially the operating base for the program. That's allocated to the regions and a headquarters program.

The allocation that's made to regions at the start of the year is as follows--and all of this comes from the $207 million. Newfoundland region gets $18.2 million for fisheries management, the Maritime region gets $15.5 million, the gulf region gets $11. 5 million, Quebec gets $7.8 million, central and Arctic gets $10.8 million, and the Pacific region gets $58.5 million. All of that is spent on resource management, which is the actual development of harvest management plans, on the conservation and protection program, which is our enforcement program, on aboriginal programming, on salmon enhancement in the Pacific region, and on international obligations.

After all the money is allocated to the regions, headquarters is left with $85 million. Members will say that is an enormous sum of money for managing fisheries in Ottawa, because there are very few fisheries in Ottawa. I would like to make it very clear that the money that is in Ottawa is, in effect, money that's held centrally at the start of a fiscal year and is, in turn, reallocated to the regions. The vast majority of that $85 million is spent in the regions. It includes things like the aboriginal fisheries strategy, which is $35 million, funding for international commissions, which is $3 million, moneys for the Pacific Salmon Treaty, which is $4 million. There's money that's held centrally at the start of the year to deal with contract settlements, $6 million. And I can go through a long list of things like this: vessel refit money, air surveillance, a radio plan, because all our fisheries officers communicate by radio, so there's an amount of money held in Ottawa to deal with repairs to the radio system. We have money held centrally for observers, for fishery officers' equipment, for major capital. We have money set aside for uniforms, and a small amount to look at new technology that can help us do our job better. So once you've stripped all this money out, it leaves a very small amount that's actually spent here in Ottawa to provide the coordination within headquarters to actually do the work we're responsible for on behalf of the sector.

Á (1155)

All of this will be provided, Mr. Chairman, in much greater detail to the committee; I'll certainly be happy to do that. But I think it's important, as I say, to understand that when you actually pull out all of these various components, there is certainly not, as committee members may suspect, a large amount of money spent in Ottawa. It's virtually all spent in the regions.

The Chair: On Tuesday we were told that human resources is under the rubric “Policy and Internal Services”. Why have you $19.5 million of employee benefits under fisheries management? Why isn't that grouped into internal services, since it's human resources?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: It's part of the salary budget, which is part of the sector budget. It's simply the way in which the money is displayed in main estimates, and it's essentially part of the sector program. I think you'll find the same in all sectors.

The Chair: So there's no separate heading for employee salaries and benefits, it's mixed up in all the numbers? Is that the normal way to do it in every department across the board? If we wanted to know, for example, how much money is spent yearly on every employee, salary and benefits from the top to the bottom, we'd have to go through every one of these numbers and allocate different amounts, is that it? Is that how it works?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: I'm not sure how other departments do it, and I know I wouldn't be qualified to speak on that.

The Chair: I would hope they all do it the same way. It makes sense to have your books in the Government of Canada all operated on the same accounting system. I'm no accountant, but to me, that's just common sense. If we have each department allocating moneys in different ways and we float from one committee to another, we'll never figure out what's going on, which may very well be the plan. That's just an aside--you don't need to make any comment. But I want to know if we can get a figure from DFO on how much money is spent on employee salaries and benefits in every way, shape, and form, separate from all the columns in table 3-1.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Yes. I want to be clear, I'm explaining it in the context of the information you received under main estimates. I was asked to try to explain the way in which the sector spends and allocates the money it has. Quite clearly, we can give you that information. It would not be difficult to pull out.

Â (1200)

The Chair: Wonderful. I'm not being critical. Ms. Cartwright, in her opening remarks, indicated that she was interested in what the committee's questions were, and not being accountants, not being people who deal with this every day, we'd like to know how much it costs the department to run itself in respect of salaries and benefits. It was totally buried in the $373 million until you told us. That's all I'm saying.

Sorry, gentlemen, for taking time.

Mr. Burton.

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a two- or three-part question here. First, Ms. Cartwright, when you made your opening remarks, you said there was something like $12 million for the AFS, yet Mr. Chamut indicated that there was something like $35 million. Could you clarify that for me, please?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: I'd be happy to. The $35 million is assigned to the so-called AFS, the aboriginal fisheries strategy. That money is used for essentially two sorts of activities. One is co-management arrangements with first nations throughout all areas where Canada manages the fishery, funding that's used to allow the department to work with first nations on cooperative ventures associated with managing and enhancing the resource. The second component is about $12 million or $13 million that is used for what we call allocation transfer. There is a component in the AFS that is used to acquire commercial fishing licences and transfer them to first nations. Those are the two main components in AFS, a total of $35 million.

The second program you're referring to, the one Ms. Cartwright mentioned, is $12 million for something called the aboriginal program framework. That is a new program that was identified in the budget this year. For 2003-2004 there will be $4 million of new money to enable the department to develop new ways of working with first nations. That money will increase to $8 million in 2004-2005. So the total over the two years is $12 million. It does represent an addition to the AFS program, which was the $35 million figure I mentioned in responding to Mr. Cummins.

Mr. Andy Burton: Just to clarify, then, the total for this budget year for the AFS will be $39 million, not $35 million, given the $4 million.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: I apologize for being bureaucratically anal, but the two programs are different and have to be reported differently. I would say there will be $39 million in total spent on aboriginal programming, but it will be in two separate programs, one the AFS, the other a program with a different name.

Mr. Andy Burton: I guess that clarifies it to some degree.

With the $85 million you say is kept in headquarters in Ottawa, you said the $35 million for the AFS comes out of that, is that correct?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Yes, sir.

Mr. Andy Burton: Yet in your $207 million, your resource management dollars for the whole country, there are also aboriginal programs. Could you clarify what those are and how much the cost is?

Â (1205)

The Chair: There was $35 million for aboriginal fisheries.

Mr. Andy Burton: Yes, aboriginal fisheries, but when Mr. Chamut broke down the $207 million resource management dollars for the country, he mentioned aboriginal programs as included in that. The $35 million for the AFS is not part of that.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: It is part of that.

The Chair: You have $207 million. You take off $85 million for the region, you have $35 million--

Mr. Andy Burton: Oh, the $85 million comes off the $207 million?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Andy Burton: All right. That clarifies it for me. Thank you very much.

I read recently that there was going to be some $50 million spent in upgrading radar systems for the coast guard. I also understand a chunk of that was for the west coast and would basically cover the lower part of Vancouver Island, but there was nothing looking at radar programs that would cover the northern B.C. coast. Is that correct? Can you perhaps explain what's happening there?

Ms. Ursula Menke: The $47.3 million we got in the budget for the next two fiscal years is capital money, and it is devoted at this time to the repair and building of infrastructure and vessels. We're in the process of developing a plan for how to spend that money, but it is going to go to a variety of capital projects, including vessel repairs and additional shore-based infrastructure. The exact details have not yet been finalized, but it is not primarily for the west coast, it is for all of Canada, and it is for all the capital projects the coast guard might undertake.

Mr. Andy Burton: What I'm getting at is that at this point in time the north coast of western Canada is not being considered for radar coverage. You say you're developing your plan. Would that plan include perhaps looking at that option?

Ms. Ursula Menke: We would be. One of the things we've been doing on the northwest coast of British Columbia is improving the facilities we have there. My understanding is that radar is a particularly difficult tool to use with that particular topography, but radar, like all other things, improves in quality, the technology is improving, and so we would from time to time continue to look at those kinds of questions to see how we would provide service. We are focused very much on that coast with a view to improving equipment there. Is it specifically radar, as opposed to something else? It's primarily telecommunications infrastructure that we're looking at.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Burton.

Since the money hasn't yet been allocated, could I, on behalf of our members, urge you to review our unanimous report on MCTS as it relates to capital equipment and repair of existing equipment before you make your final decisions?

Ms. Ursula Menke: We are indeed doing that, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for appearing before the committee.

I have some specific issues that don't need to be answered today, but I'm asking them on behalf of particular representations I've had in the last few weeks. I'm not sure if the department has been asked to do this yet, but some fishermen along Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick and Cape Breton are concerned about what they feel are the effects of the P.E.I. Confederation Bridge on some shellfish stocks. One of the questions I have to be answered later is whether DFO is doing any kind of study or research on stock allocation and catch amounts before and after the bridge was there. Some fishermen believe this bridge is part of the cause of the decline of their catches on shellfish beds.

Also, permanent crab fishermen in area 12 and area 23 are concerned about a possible decision on a permanent sharing agreement with additional allocations going into those stocks. Although I know a decision has not been made yet, how are those discussions going, and are all the stakeholders at the table when they're being presented?

Finally, Pacific halibut fishermen came before, I imagine, some DFO representatives and us on some concerns they had.

So if those questions can be answered later, I'd appreciate that, because the questions I have in my limited time--

Â (1210)

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, what's the question on halibut?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: How the discussions are proceeding with that group. They made representations to us individually, and I understand they made representations to DFO.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Yes. We will respond.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

My first question relates to Cape Breton and the decision to lift the moratorium on dragging for the winter cod fishery. I'd like to know who made that decision and why, especially after FRCC said it was not their recommendation to do that.

The Chair: That's a policy question. I think it's better addressed to the minister when he appears.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Well, somebody within DFO had to advise the minister, sir--

The Chair: I'm sure, and the minister will talk about it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Another question concerns the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board allowing the decision to go ahead on seismic testing in some pretty fragile fish stock areas, where they breed along the coast of Cape Breton.

Then there is DND and mustard gas ammunition sites. There have been various dump sites around Cape Breton and in the gulf area. What is DFO doing to assist DND in searching out those areas? And what are you doing to prevent, for example, any kind of dragging or seismic testing around what could be very potentially sensitive areas, if indeed something goes off or goes wrong? What will that do to fish stocks?

And my last question, to be answered later, concerns the Yukon placer agreement. I understand there are discussions between the minister and the placer miners. How are those talks proceeding? I know Larry Bagnell would have asked that question if he were here.

That's it for now.

The Chair: If the witnesses can answer any of those questions now, I'll give them the opportunity to do so. Otherwise, you can take them under advisement and give us answers in the future. I'm interested in the mustard gas too, but if you can answer them, great, if not, we'll wait for your answers.

Madam Watson-Wright.

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: I'm sure I can't answer the whole thing, but on the seismic testing, I thought the committee might be interested to know our centre for offshore gas and oil environmental research is actually setting up multidisciplinary collaborative research looking at sound propagation and the effects on northern bottlenose whales in the gullies off Nova Scotia. I recognize that this is not exactly the area you're talking about, but we are receiving funding from the oil and gas industry, as well as others, and this is the way we would hope to proceed with looking at the effects of seismic testing on various species. It's easier, I think, on some than others.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm sorry, did you say you're receiving funding from the industry to do sound testings near the gully?

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: The Environmental Science Research Fund, to which the industry contributes, Petroleum Research Atlantic Canada, Marathon Oil Incorporated, and the Government of Nova Scotia are all contributing to that particular project.

Coming back to the effect of the Confederation Bridge on shellfish stocks, certainly, in the context of doing our yearly stock assessments, we would be looking very carefully at trends. I personally haven't heard any concerns yet from our scientists in the gulf region on shellfish stocks in the Northumberland Strait, but we always look for trends, and if there's an anomaly or there seems to be a trend starting, we investigate at the same time or come up with hypotheses as to why that would happen. I will certainly follow up with our scientists in the gulf region.

The Chair: Does anyone else want to venture an answer on anything today?

Ms. Kirby.

Ms. Sue Kirby (Assistant Deputy Minister, Oceans, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): On Yukon placer, the discussions are ongoing. The minister did announce a decision in December about the phasing out of the authority. There are ongoing discussions about flexibility in how that will be phased in, and there will be an implementation committee meeting to discuss the details of how to implement that decision in the most flexible way, recognizing the need to protect fish habitat.

The Chair: Will the member for Yukon be involved in those discussions and those negotiations?

Ms. Sue Kirby: The Yukon government will be involved, the first nations will be involved, the miners will be involved.

The Chair: Could I suggest that you invite the member for Yukon as well?

Ms. Sue Kirby: I'm sure he's been in discussions with the minister already.

Â (1215)

The Chair: Okay, I'm sure he has.

Sorry, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The Taku watershed up in northern British Columbia is one of the most beautiful areas we have in the country, one of the last areas that's more or less untouched when it comes to aboriginal and non-aboriginal fishing activities for the five species of salmon that inhabit that area. Mr. Chamut, you may know the Tulsequah Chief mine is still leaking whatever kinds of chemicals or residue out of the mine into the watershed, and it's been doing that for close to 50 years. Back in 1995 the Department of Environment issued a statement that this needed to be cleaned up, and it still hasn't been done. I'm not sure whose responsibility it would be to do that, to protect fish and fish habitat. There are discussions going on now with a particular company called Redfern, I believe, that wishes to operate the mine. They say they'll clean it up, build a road, and all these other things, but right now that mine is still bringing deleterious substances into the watershed. What is DFO, especially in the Pacific region, doing to address those concerns for the Tlingit people of the Taku region?

The Chair: Is that really a question dealing with specific budget allocation matters? Is that not better addressed to the minister? We should focus on the estimates and ask specific questions on the estimates. Maybe we can just ask the officials to pass that question on to the minister.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Every one of these questions has to do with resources and money.

The Chair: I understand. Decisions have to be taken, and the minister takes them.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes.

The Chair: All right, I've accommodated what you requested, and we now go to Mr. Farrah.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I too, would like to welcome you before this Committee.

I had asked a question, last Tuesday, about the Marine Communications and Traffic Services, the MCTS. As you know, the Committee made a report. It also toured the Pacific and Atlantic regions and visited the Marine Communications and Traffic Services centres. As far as budget is concerned, it was mentioned in last year's budget that $69.2 million were allocated to MCTS. This year, the amount is $70.4 million, but there should be a decrease after that. In 2005-2006, the budget should be around $60 million. Given the number of centres and the level of inflation, which has normally an impact on costs, how do you reach that conclusion for budget purposes? How come that in 2005-2006, the budget will go down to $60 million, which represents a $10 million decrease?

Mme Ursula Menke : In fact, it is not a decrease in our budget at all; it's a mistake in the figures. The budget remains constant at $70.4 million. Apparently, the problem is that all the money that had not yet been allocated has been misplaced in another column. That's why you can see a decrease which is not a real one. Our budget is stable.

Mr. Georges Farrah: As far as thee Coast Guard is concerned, we know that there are presently discussions with the industry on the costs of Maritime Services. This has a budgetary impact because the industry is paying Maritime Services fees following previous negotiations. The industry feels that the cost is too high. Consequently, could you give us an update and tell us where the negotiations are at? Are they finished? If not, how is it going?

Mme Ursula Menke: Unfortunately, I can't really tell you anything new. We are still talking with the industry. Obviously, they maintain that such fees shouldn't exist. According to government policy, users are supposed to pay the cost of services provided. So, discussions are going on. I cannot give you any specific date, but we'll have to make a decision on this file. I hope that this will be done this year, so that we can settle the problem.

Â (1220)

Mr. Georges Farrah : Thank you.

Mr. Chamut, concerning budgets for science, we know that the FRCC has filed a report saying that stocks are suffering and that the Minister will have to make a decision on the Gulf cod. Does the Department intend to give priority to this issue by allocating more funding, or at least, to give priority to this stock, so that we could find out for what reasons, since the first moratorium at the beginning of the 90s and in spite of this moratorium, there has been no increase in stocks? In other words, should we make more efforts to understand the real reasons for this stock decline?

[English]

Mr. Patrick Chamut: I can offer a few comments, and my colleague the ADM of Science may want to add a few as well.

This issue of what to do with cod in the gulf in particular and what to do with stock rebuilding plans is a constant priority for the department now. We are certainly looking at a number of different pieces of advice, from Newfoundland, from Quebec, from the FRCC, and from our own scientists, as to what we need to do in order to preserve and rebuild the stocks. A number of groups have identified that there needs to be more science, to develop a better understanding of some of the circumstances that are causing the problems we see with the decline in the stocks. Probably, it's premature for me to offer any comment about what would be a final decision taken by the minister, but certainly, we do understand the importance of good science to give us a better appreciation of some of the factors that are causing the lack of rebuilding of these cod stocks. The issue of cod science we expect will be looked at very carefully by the minister as he makes his decision in the coming weeks.

One point that I would like to make, though, is that within the overall program of scientific study, the department already spends a very large amount of money studying cod. I think it's probably the largest expenditure we have dedicated to any one species. There are going to be some legitimate questions on how much research is enough, particularly given that there's a large number of other species that need to be looked at in the Atlantic fishery. We now have a fishery that in the last decade has moved from being groundfish-dependent to being dependent on shellfish. We have, essentially, three main species that are sustaining the Atlantic fishery, shrimp, crab, and lobster. We don't spend a lot of money on science to study what's going on with respect to those stocks. There is obviously a very important choice to be made on where you invest the money. Cod is important, but I would also submit that we need to study the other stocks. When you look at the economic importance of them, they are certainly the foundation of the Atlantic fishery, and prudence would suggest that we also need to understand what's happening to them. A balanced decision will have to be taken with respect to what we do in the long term in regard to cod.

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: I think Mr. Chamut has answered it very well, but I would just like to agree with him that we are allocating a lot to cod; it's a quarter of what we spend on all the fisheries on the east coast at this point. What we feel has more need is the interactions, the ecosystem, the environmental conditions, the predator prey, the seals, the caplin, and whatnot, and we are moving in that direction.

Â (1225)

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll now go to Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to skip back to the issue of the hovercraft. Back in 2002, coast guard documents say, a submission for a replacement for O-45 was in the approval process, but replacement craft would not be operational for some undefined period of time after October 4, 2002. That was a long time ago. I wonder if you want to comment on that. What happened to that approval process?

Ms. Ursula Menke: That approval process is still ongoing. That is the craft we were talking about, the used craft, specifically.

Mr. John Cummins: This was for October 2002, and the approval process is still ongoing, you haven't made your mind up yet?

Ms. Ursula Menke: No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the approval process is still ongoing. The approval process for any capital acquisition is a multi-step process. It starts off with an approval in principle, and that took place some time ago. From there we went to a preliminary project approval, which is the stage we are still at, where we finalize the requirements and the pricing, so that we know exactly what we're buying and we can, at that point in time, sign a contract for the final amount.

Mr. John Cummins: Back in August 2002 there was a document prepared for the coast guard commissioner, and it said two air-cushion vehicles stationed at Sea Island Base were critical in providing SAR coverage and response capability for the southern Georgia Strait, as well as providing for litoral SAR capability in the mud flats surrounding Vancouver International Airport. That's a pretty stark statement of the need, and I'm asking you how come we're in this approval process for well over two years. How is that, given the dramatic statement of need in a document prepared by coast guard for the commissioner?

Ms. Ursula Menke: As you said, it was in 2002 that this process was started. It is ongoing, and it is pursued through Public Works. I would remind the member that this is, after all, a back-up vehicle only, and we do have a hovercraft in place. The process will be completed, in fact, far more quickly. It is the paperwork process we're involved in right now.

Mr. John Cummins: I would remind the witness that back-up is the wrong term to describe a necessary rescue vehicle. Would you describe the second fire truck at an airport as a back-up and do without it? At Vancouver International Airport can you imagine operating without a fire truck?

Ms. Ursula Menke: No, and indeed, we don't operate without a hovercraft--

Mr. John Cummins: Yes, you do.

Ms. Ursula Menke: We do have a primary hovercraft.

Mr. John Cummins: No, you don't. It's quite clear that no piece of equipment can operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and there is no back-up. There is not another hovercraft available when that vessel is out for routine maintenance or refit or is off on another job.

Ms. Ursula Menke: That's true--

Mr. John Cummins: That's true. Thank you.

Ms. Ursula Menke: --but we have a helicopter as back-up in the interim.

Mr. John Cummins: Can you imagine trying to rescue people out of a downed 747 in the mud flats off the Vancouver airport with a helicopter?

Â (1230)

Ms. Ursula Menke: I certainly hope we don't have to do that. I would hate to--

Mr. John Cummins: Can you imagine doing it with a helicopter? Is a helicopter, in your view, an adequate replacement for a hovercraft?

Ms. Ursula Menke: If we had a downed 747, one air-cushion vehicle would not be sufficient either. We would have problems--

Mr. John Cummins: That's correct, and that's why the Vancouver International Airport Authority emergency plan calls for two.

Ms. Ursula Menke: We are in the process of getting that.

Mr. John Cummins: You are the folks who are to provide that.

Why does the Quebec region have priority for an ice-breaking hovercraft over a lifesaving hovercraft for the Vancouver airport? How do you figure that?

The Chair: That is a policy question, it calls for an assumption that there is a priority, so why don't you ask that of the minister?

Is there anything else?

Mr. John Cummins: You bet there is.

In the government budget it says there's $47 million a year over the next couple of years going into the coast guard. I understand it's going to something called the technical group, not to the fleet. How is that $47 million going to be spent?

Ms. Ursula Menke: That $47 million is all major capital money, and it is going to be spent in four major areas, vessels, aids to navigation, electronic equipment, and information equipment.

Mr. John Cummins: Let's go to aids to navigation. The budget on marine communications and traffic services is actually flat. So where's the money going to be spent there? Where's that capital money, that $47 million, showing there?

Ms. Ursula Menke: That isn't reflected yet in those numbers, because that has not yet been finally awarded. That will be awarded through supplementary estimates at some time during the year.

Mr. John Cummins: I'm told that there are problems with the refit of the buoy tender Griffith and that there were inappropriate amounts suggested for the funds needed to refit the vessel, but it was signed off anyway, and now there are some huge cost overruns. Is that true?

Ms. Ursula Menke: I'm afraid I can't comment specifically, but I can get back to you on that.

The Chair: I'll have to call it there, Mr. Cummins, for this round anyway.

You never know where committee questions are going to go. On Tuesday we had numerous questions about the review directorate and how policies are reviewed. Poor old Mr. Whittingham is sitting there and he's the only one who hasn't said a word. I just want to remind members that he's there, in case anybody wants to ask about review.

We're going to Mr. Leblanc.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would have been happy to follow up on that suggestion, but I sat on the tarmac at Toronto airport on Tuesday morning and missed the hearing, so I can't help you there.

Thank you very much for coming this morning. I apologize that I was late, as I was sent to another committee by our whip's office, but I was looking forward to this session.

Pat, your saying you didn't want to be bureaucratically anal will go down in this committee as one of the great moments. I thought you purged yourself of that when you were at Burnt Church so often last summer. I would have thought the time you spent in Miramichi cured you of that.

I'll start with a compliment. Thank you very much for reflecting properly in this year's estimates the new status you've given to the gulf region. I had hoped to have a chance to see Wayne Waters and ask him why in the previous year's estimates there was a little asterisk that said, “Maritime region also includes the Gulf region”. I won't get that chance, for a number of reasons, but thank you. The document accurately reflects the decision Mr. Waters and the minister took a year and a half ago. I know that was important to some of us on this committee, and I appreciate that.

But on that, the coast guard presence in the gulf region is different from in other regions. I don't think we need to revisit that, I understand why that's the case, but I'm curious about some of the new funding. In the four areas you described I don't see how that might allow you to have a more permanent presence in the gulf region--I'm not talking about a whole coast guard region. What plans do you have to assure your clients in the gulf region that there will be a continued coast guard presence?

The second question concerns another pet peeve of mine, small craft harbours. You will remember that this committee and a number of others, including your minister, worked hard to increase the small craft harbour budget. I appreciate that it might come under the corporate services group, but perhaps somebody could get back to me. There was $20 million a year more put in over five years, but I notice that in the planned spending in 2005-2006 it seems to alarmingly drop again. Like our chairman, I wasn't very good in math at all, that's why I went to law school, so I'm not sure I even understand these charts, but I'd like to have a sense of the small craft harbours budget. It's a very visible way your department is involved in small communities. One of the frustrations is that major capital projects--and I see them listed--are large projects, by definition, and little harbours in small communities often don't fit on those lists. Our hope was, when we increased that budget, that some of them might get on the list, and to our disappointment, many aren't. There are other tools to achieve that objective, but I'm curious to see how the new money in the budget a year and a half ago went into small craft harbours, and particularly how that can affect small harbours up and down the coast.

Third, to follow up on that Peter Stoffer talked about, I was hoping Ms. Watson-Wright might be able to direct some of the people who work in science in the gulf region. I've had a conversation with Mike Chadwick and Jim Jones about the effects of the bridge. It's anecdotal, and I'm not a mathematician, I'm not a scientist, but fishermen are telling me that lobster landings, scallops, and so on around Cape Tormentine, Murray Corner, the part of Northumberland Strait I represent, have been severely affected by the bridge. I'm wondering if you could ask Mike Chadwick or some of the people to go and meet with them and listen to their story. They have a compelling story. I appreciate that there are limited resources, but I think there's a real sense of concern in that community, because compared to that other lobster fishing area, they are way down. If Mike Chadwick or somebody who's responsible would spend some time and listen to them, they may be be able to provide you and us with some advice. They tell me that's the case, and I don't know whether that's true or not.

Â (1235)

The Chair: Thank you, Dominic.

As I said to Peter, the officials have heard, and perhaps they'll communicate those concerns to the minister. Please ask those questions when the minister comes.

Second, there was a very interesting and lengthy discussion about harbours on Tuesday. You might want to review the evidence. You may or may not disagree with some of things that were said, the differences between capital expenses of over a million dollars and those under a million dollars, where they're tucked in the budget, things of that nature.

I'll call on witnesses to answer, if they wish.

Ms. Watson-Wright.

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: I'd like to respond to the last suggestion. Dr. Chadwick is particularly good at going out and meeting with fishers, meeting with the industry, as is Jim Jones. I'm quite certain that will happen, and I will certainly pass this on to Mike.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any comments on harbours?

Ms. Cartwright.

Ms. Susan Cartwright: The small craft harbours program is the responsibility of Mr. Wheelhouse, who was here before you on Tuesday, so I would ask that he have an opportunity to respond.

The Chair: I think we're waiting for some answers in that regard.

Then there's the coast guard in the gulf region.

Ms. Menke.

Ms. Ursula Menke: In the short run we have no plans with respect to that money. It's a fairly small amount of money, and it's being directed by us, as I said previously, to vessel and infrastructure repair and acquisition. What we have in place now is a plan for zonal operations within that area, to ensure that the gulf region does not get short-changed on coast guard services. What we are basically doing is combining the resources of the Quebec region, the Newfoundland region, and the maritime region and ensuring that the entire region is adequately served by moving resources around as needed.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Burton.

Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chamut, earlier you were discussing the need for more science, better science, and so on in relation to the cod stocks, but I think also in regard to a lot of other issues, including pacific salmon, aquaculture, and invasive species. We've heard a lot about the need for good science, more science, and so on. I notice your planned spending for 2003-2004 is actually 5% higher than the forecast spending, but in 2004-2005 it's 5% down, and in 2005-2006 it's another 8% down. So that's really a drop in planned spending over the next couple of years, and yet we're talking about the need for more science. That really doesn't ring true with me. If we need the science, which I think we do, I think we also have to look at budgetary requirements. So why is there a decrease in the planned spending?

Â (1240)

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: I don't have those numbers in front of me, unfortunately.

The Chair: What are you referring to, Mr. Burton?

Mr. Andy Burton: Table 3-1, under “Fisheries and Oceans Science”.

The Chair: Page 17.

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: I will go and look at the numbers. I will come back with an answer to that. There is some sunset funding that we lose from year to year, and I believe that's the case here, but I would like to come back to you with a more specific answer, if that's acceptable.

Mr. Andy Burton: I would definitely like that clarified, and I think the committee members would as well. As I said earlier, I think there is a real need for good science within DFO, and we certainly seem to have a lot of problems. If you're going to do the job, you need the money.

I'll turn the rest of my time over to Mr. Cummins, if I may.

The Chair: Without taking time from Mr. Cummins, just so that we're sure, you want to know why there's a drop from $160 million to $152.6 million to $140.8 million.

Mr. Andy Burton: And a breakdown on where the dollars are going. For all we know, there may be an increase in what we're asking about, but we don't know with the overall numbers like that.

The Chair: All right. Thank you.

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: I have two quick questions on the hovercraft, and then I want to move on. How much money is being set aside for Quebec region's new hovercraft?

Ms. Ursula Menke: $24 million.

Mr. John Cummins: How much money is being set aside for the used hovercraft for the west coast?

Ms. Ursula Menke: Somewhere under $6 million.

The Chair: Very good questions, well phrased.

Mr. John Cummins: In the Pacific region, Mr. Chamut, how much was spent last year on enforcement, and how much are you spending in 2003-2004?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: The money that will be allocated in the current fiscal year, 2003-2004, is $13.5 million.

Mr. John Cummins: How does that relate to last year?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Unfortunately, Mr. Cummins, I don't have those figures here, and I do not recall what they are, but I can certainly get them.

Mr. John Cummins: Is it ball park?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Yes. I don't believe there is a significant decline in that amount. These are the amounts that are allocated to the region.

Mr. John Cummins: Last year fisheries officers worked office hours in the Steveston area. They had no money for overtime. There was very little money available even for fuel for the vessels. How do you evaluate the effectiveness of the money you spend on that activity, given these shortcomings?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: We have a number of approaches to look at the effectiveness. First, there's an ongoing assessment of violations detected, and that's done across the country.

Mr. John Cummins: Can I interrupt you on that for a minute, Mr. Chamut, please? If you don't have anybody in the field, how can you assess infractions? There's nobody out there. I know there are calls that come in, because I've made calls myself to the department and been told, well, we'll get there sometime, and nobody ever showed up. If you're not in the field, because there's no overtime, and poaching and those sorts of activities go on at night and on the weekend, how could assessment or counting violations or charges be appropriate?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: I was about to explain that it's one of a number of assessments, Mr. Cummins. Clearly, if people are not in the field, the number of violations detected will go down. I think you would probably agree that this might be an indication of effectiveness, would you not?

Â (1245)

Mr. John Cummins: I would, and I know you would, Mr. Chamut, but I bet you there are some folks over in that department who would say, well, gee, things are going great, our violations are down, we got all the poachers last year. You and I wouldn't take that, I'm sure, but others would.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: I'm seriously trying to answer your question--

Mr. John Cummins: I understand that.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: We are well aware that in the Pacific region in 2002 there was a decline in the amount of overtime and in the amount of operating money, and it did affect the amount of time officers could spend in the field.

The number of violations does give us some rough indication of effectiveness. Also, for example, we do a post-season review, which is intended to identify what went right, what went wrong, and what we need to do to improve in the future. In the Pacific region in 2002 there was actually a decline in the number of violations that were identified, which suggests to me that the fact officers were not present in the field did contribute to reducing effectiveness. Moreover, we are currently looking much more at trying to identify those activities that are likely to have the largest impact on things like conservation.

We don't have the staff, and probably never will, to cover every fishery and monitor every activity that's there. What we're trying to do is look strategically at how to best deploy the resources we have, and we deploy them on the basis of an assessment of risk. We look at that in season to see what the trends are, based on intelligence. We monitor and adjust the resources and the distribution depending on that insight, and we also do the post-season review.

The Chair: Thank you.

We have a little less than 15 minutes left, and Mr. Stoffer and Mr. Matthews would like to ask questions, and I'd like five minutes for myself.

Let's go to Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'll be very quick, Mr. Chairperson.

Where in the budget specifically would any funding for the coast guard auxiliary be, and if there is an amount, would you be able to tell us how much it is?

Ms. Ursula Menke: The amount would be in the transfer payment section. The amount for this year is $4.5 million, and if you turn to page 8-6, you'll see it right there.

The Chair: Where is it in this?

Ms. Ursula Menke: I've got a photocopy of it. It's 8-6.

The Chair: Yes, that's the main estimates. Where is it in the RPP?

Ms. Ursula Menke: I don't have that information, my apologies.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's fine.

Is it the regular coast guard itself that administers the funds to the auxiliary, or is it the auxiliary itself that receives the money and then distributes it in what it sees as a proper manner?

Ms. Ursula Menke: There are agreements with respect to how they distribute it, but they do indeed distribute it. The money is distributed primarily to defray the costs of providing the support they provide. There are no payments made to individuals in respect of that.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Very good.

In this book as well it says DFO manages 638 harbours, and we've been divesting ourselves of small craft harbours for quite some time now. I assume that program is still continuing, and if it is, what does the government hope to achieve in savings by divesting itself of harbours? It says 638 now, but is there a particular goal the government or DFO wishes to get to, or is the eventual plan to divest themselves of all or most of the harbours? What would the cost saving be in that?

Ms. Susan Cartwright: May I take that question for James Wheelhouse, who's responsible for small craft harbours, to respond to?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Fair enough.

The boating regulations were changed over the last few years. How much is actually going to seeing if those regulations are being met? In Nova Scotia recently there were some newspaper articles about the fact that the policy is good, but nobody's monitoring this. It's like nobody checking with radar on the highways if nobody's monitoring the boats or small ships that are travelling to see if they adhere to these regulations.

Â (1250)

The Chair: Not even between 9 and 5?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm just going by what the media reports are saying.

Ms. Ursula Menke: That's a program we do very much on a partnership basis. We do not, in fact, spend any money with respect to enforcement of those regulations, but that is where the local and municipal police forces come in, and they are our primary partners with respect to enforcement of those.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: So coast guard and coast guard auxiliary wouldn't be involved?

Ms. Ursula Menke: No, they would not.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Why is that, Madam?

Ms. Ursula Menke: We really don't have the training and the ability to do that kind of enforcement work. We're not an enforcement agency, so we rely on our partners to do the enforcement.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You enforce fishing regulations. If DFO puts in boating regulations, why wouldn't DFO monitor them to see if indeed the program is working?

Ms. Ursula Menke: We are interested very much in seeing that the program is working, and we do have indicia to that effect, but we do not actually enforce the regulations.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chair: It's a good question for the minister, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I've got lots of good questions here, but I've got no time.

The Chair: Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I want to follow up on Mr. Farrah's and Mr. Burton's questions on fishery science particularly. About 11 years ago the minister of the day imposed a moratorium on cod stocks around Newfoundland and Labrador. Has the department concluded why the northern cod stocks have not regenerated? Right now the biomass is in worse shape than it was 11 years ago, when we shut it down. So has the department concluded why the cod have not come back?

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: In our most recent assessment on cod in the Atlantic zone, which includes all our four regions, a number of days were spent on exactly that question, why the cod are not coming back and what happened to them. There is no one definitive answer to what has happened to the cod stocks and why are they not rebuilding. The decline 11 years ago was definitely related to the environmental conditions of the day, in addition to fishing and predation. There were probably 135 hypotheses at the outset, and I think they narrowed them down considerably, but essentially, it is a combination of the environmental conditions, the fishing that does go on, the condition of the fish, perhaps due to the environmental conditions, the predation, and the condition of the stocks upon which the cod feed. So as with many scientific questions, there are a number of contributing factors.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I listened very closely to what Mr. Chamut said about cod and the amount of money spent on cod science, and then the importance of shrimp and crab. The crab picture is not looking any better either. The stock assessments I've seen on that in the last few days don't look all that bright. I don't want to diminish the science on crab and shrimp and other species, but I hope we're not seeing a decision by the department to move away from science on cod, when we're still in big trouble. The minister has got to make some tough decisions in the next couple of weeks. When I look at your fishery science budget, we're going to see a decrease of some $20 million over the next couple of years, from $160 million to $140 million. My view is that in light of the importance of shrimp and crab and the difficulties of crab in some zones, and as we still do not know the answer as to why our cod has not rebounded, we do not need a decrease in science, we need an increase. I'd be interested in hearing your response to that.

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: The ecosystem research we do contributes to all species, looking at the oceanographic conditions, at the environmental conditions, at the predator-prey interactions. In fact, we do look at all the species. We have moved to multispecies surveys, and that's exactly where we wish to go.

Â (1255)

Mr. Bill Matthews: Can I deduce that the $20 million decrease you're planning over the next couple of years will not be on the back of cod science? That's really what I'm asking today. You're going to have to beef up your science on crab, that's obvious. From what I've read in the last couple of days coming out of DFO on certain crab stocks in certain zones, the view of scientific people is that they're in a nose dive, which to me looks like serious trouble. So does the decrease in your science budget mean taking it away from cod, or are you going to maintain the level of science on cod? Are you going to have multispecies ecosystem science? What can we hope to see from you? Because after 11 years, in my view, we should have more definitive answers, and we still don't.

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: You've kind of answered the question. We are moving to a more ecosystem-based, more holistic type of research, which will give us answers on a number of species. We don't track by species normally, but we will be moving to a more integrated approach to the science we do in the ocean on all the species and resources that are in there, in conjunction with the environmental research, which is absolutely necessary.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Are you saying the integrated science is going to be cheaper than what you're doing now, and that's why we're going to see $20 million less?

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: No, I'm not saying it's cheaper, and I am coming back on where we're losing the $20 million. As I said, I suspect there are some sunsetting programs in there that may be totally unrelated, and I believe they are, to the ecosystem or fisheries research in the Atlantic zone, but I would like to come back with the answer to that, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

One question for the record from Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Chamut, where I was going with the enforcement question was to budget issues in the Pacific region. The management structure, if you will, in the Pacific region was changed within the last year or so. Previously it had been a sort of central authority based in Vancouver, everybody reported to head office in Vancouver. That's the way it was when you were the manager. Recently it was changed to six regional offices. How much did it cost to make those structural changes? How much more is it costing to operate these six regional offices, as opposed to the central authority that was in place and working so well when you were there?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Thank you, Mr. Cummins, that's the first time I've heard that it was actually going well when I was there.

Mr. John Cummins: Although we may on occasion disagree, I do have the highest regard for you. You've been an outstanding man in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. You've got a lot of experience in it, you're interested in it, you're dedicated to it. My hat's off to you. I think you're one of the best in the department, if not the best, and I don't mind saying that.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Thank you, sir.

To answer the question, the management structure did change, we did go to the area offices. There were increased costs associated with establishing those offices, because clearly, there would be infrastructure associated with them. The intent, though, was to offset the increases by reducing some of the costs in the headquarters area. I don't think that transformation has yet been completed. There undoubtedly would be some increased costs associated with establishing those offices that were not offset by reductions elsewhere. In the long term the intent was clearly to make the move to a new area structure cost-neutral. I do not believe that objective has been met, but I don't have a figure on the difference between the old structure and the new structure. I do know what the intent was, and it has not yet been achieved.

· (1300)

Mr. John Cummins: There's a relationship with the inability to provide funding to enforcement, isn't there? You've got so much money, $58.5 million, and if the management structure eats into that, you've got to cut somewhere. I guess that means you can't have overtime for enforcement guys and you can't put fuel in your boats.

The Chair: Thank you.

Specifically on the estimates, which department of DFO is in charge of implementation of the Oceans Act? First of all, is there any money in the upcoming estimates for implementation of the Oceans Act?

Ms. Sue Kirby: Yes, and you find it under the line “Habitat Management and Environmental Science”. The figure for oceans included in there is $14.6 million for the upcoming year.

The Chair: Thank you.

We talked about $6.1 million for the sea lamprey and $2 million for all other invasive species. Where is that in table 3-1?

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: That would be predominantly under “Habitat Management and Environmental Science”.

The Chair: Predominantly. Where would the rest be?

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: Some of the work we do is related to, for example, the aquaculture industry, particularly on the east coast, where some of the research we do might show up under “Fisheries and Oceans Science”, but in fact it's related to the invasive species. But invasive species research is under the “Environmental Science” line.

The Chair: Thank you.

I asked a question on Tuesday about the national voluntary sector initiative. I asked where that was. I don't know that I got an answer. Mr. Farrah indicated to me, and perhaps somebody could either confirm or deny it, that it comes under the same heading as Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary, $4.5 million, which is described on the main estimates on page 8-6. Does anybody know whether that's an accurate answer?

Ms. Ursula Menke: It does not come under that. I don't know where it does come, but I do know it does not come under that.

The Chair: Could you, Ms. Cartwright, tell us where it does come from?

Ms. Susan Cartwright: I think what Mr. Farrah may have been indicating is that it is a contribution, so it would be listed in the same place as the coast guard auxiliary support, but it doesn't come from the money designated for the coast guard auxiliary. I'll have to confirm exactly where it shows up in the main estimates. I only have the RPP here before me.

The Chair: All right, then let's go to the RPP. Does it show up anywhere in the RPP, specifically table 3-1, and if so, where?

Ms. Susan Cartwright: I would need to confirm where it shows up in the RPP. I can tell you what the amount is and what it's for.

The Chair: The amount for the year for the national voluntary sector initiative?

Ms. Susan Cartwright: Yes. We had three projects approved for funding, with a total contribution of $424,246 over two years.

The Chair: I'm confused. This announcement talks about $470,000, I'm not sure over what period of time or in which budget. This is the March 21, 2003, news release. Maybe somebody could tell us where that money is. I'm presuming that since it was announced on March 21, it's got to be the old money, but maybe I'm wrong. If I am, where is it in the new money?

Ms. Susan Cartwright: I'll come back to you in writing on that, if I may.

The Chair: Wonderful, thank you.

I've been given to understand that Fisheries and Oceans gets money. For example, Mr. Stoffer mentioned the halibut organization, where there's co-management, and they're very proud to say they contribute money to a number of things, including science, I presume science research. Where is money coming into the department from partners? Where is that shown? Is it shown?

Ms. Susan Cartwright: It is not, as far as I know, but that's a bit beyond my area of expertise.

The Chair: Who should I ask?

Ms. Susan Cartwright: Mr. Chamut is going to give it a shot.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: There's a variety of ways in which stakeholders contribute to the departmental program. Commercial fishing licence fees are one area. The money that is provided indirectly supports departmental programming. We have a revenue target we have to meet. Meeting the revenue target ensures that we don't have to make up the difference between that and what we actually collect using departmental moneys. So that's one source of funding we get, which indirectly comes from licence fees. There are similar sorts of arrangements with fees paid for small craft harbours and the like.

· (1305)

The Chair: Do they come into the department? Is the cheque made payable, or does it go to consolidated revenue?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: It goes into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: There's another source of funding, which is what we would call co-management agreements, partnership arrangements with groups. Pacific halibut is an example, area 12 crab fishermen are another. The money comes through a contracting arrangement with a particular fishing organization, a legal agreement. There are a number of instances where that occurs, but it is not explicitly highlighted in the documents you have.

The Chair: But that is money coming into the department, is it not, or at least money the department doesn't have to allocate, because they're only paying for, let's say, 50% of what they would have? And that's not shown anywhere?

Ms. Cartwright.

Ms. Susan Cartwright: On page 68 of the RPP there is a listing of sources of respendable and non-respendable revenue. Respendable, as I understand it, is revenue that comes to the department, and the non-respendable is revenue that goes to consolidated revenue and does not come to the department.

The Chair: So people like halibut fishermen and the area 12 crab fishermen would likely be listed in table 6-5? Could you check into it and let me know?

Ms. Susan Cartwright: I'd be glad to.

The Chair: If I were looking to see how much money was spent on MCTS in the Pacific region in 2002-2003 and how much money was going to be spent in 2003-04, where would I look to get that information? I'm not asking you for that, I want to know where in the estimates I find it.

Ms. Ursula Menke: I don't believe the estimates are broken down that finely. What we have in the estimates is the allocations to the regions, but that's the total budget for the entire coast guard, as opposed to the lines of business within it. We have the lines of business also in the estimates, but they again are not broken down, I believe, by region. So we have the total MCTS, but not regional MCTS.

The Chair: So would the $70.4 million for MCTS include salaries?

Ms. Ursula Menke: Yes, it would.

The Chair: And there are no salaries for MCTS in “Policy and Internal Services”?

Ms. Ursula Menke: I can't absolutely say no, but I have no reason to believe there would be any money with respect to MCTS in that line.

The Chair: Okay. The reason I'm asking is that this committee made a recommendation for increased money for increased person-years for MCTS services, particularly in the Pacific region, and I was looking to see if there was any way I could determine, by reading the estimates, whether that little wish came true. Is there any way of determining that by reading the estimates or the RPPs?

Ms. Ursula Menke: At this point in time there is no clear indication of that. I don't think you can see it in the documents.

The Chair: So I guess, when we do our big study and you come back, we'll get into that.

Finally, there is a 3% decrease overall, as I read it, in the DFO budget for next year. I'm wondering why it is that the DFO budget is decreasing in these times, when we've got balanced budgets and we have numerous needs, including science. What's the rationale for a declining budget for DFO?

· (1310)

Ms. Susan Cartwright: I can provide you with a preliminary answer. I want to check and see if it is more complicated than this, but my understanding is that it's a result of sunsetting programs and the ending of funding we received under program integrity.

The Chair: Thank you very much for bearing with our questions, and we look forward to the detailed answers you were unable to provide today. I'm very sorry, Mr. Whittingham, that you had to come all this way and not get asked a question, but maybe you'd be kind enough to come along with the minister when he comes, and maybe we'll get to you.

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Chairman, before you bang the gavel, for the record, it should be noted that Mr. Chamut nodded in agreement with my last statement, and I would hate for his agreement to go unacknowledged.

The Chair: Your last statement that he is such an excellent person?

Mr. John Cummins: Well, that too, I'm sure.

The Chair: Thank you again, folks.

The meeting is adjourned.