[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, May 4, 1995
.1543 
[English]
The Chairman: I call the meeting to order.
We have with us today Martha Hynna, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services - you have the difficult job; Dick Hodgson, Director General, Program Planning and Coordination; Michael Turner, Deputy Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard. I've sent a few letters to you in my day and there will probably be a few more.
We're going to talk about some issues. I think somebody has framed in why we're going through this. We're going to the west coast next week. We're trying to get up to snuff on some of the issues so we don't look like most people think MPs perform. We're going to be brilliant as usual, as a committee. We're going to knock them down with our knowledge of the industry and all that's going on in the government - that is, if you brief us really well today. We're counting on a good briefing and if we fail we'll blame you guys.
I don't know how you want to do this. This morning we had some other briefings and we only have until about 5 o'clock, at the very outside about 5:10 p.m. I know a couple of members have to leave.
Could you try to give us an overview of where the department is. This morning I found most of the useful information we got came from questions rather than from the presentations, although the presentation was pretty important.
.1545
Can we start with you, Martha?
Ms Martha Hynna (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): We were thinking we'd start with Mike because he'll be a little more general and just give you the context of the merger. We'll go into the detail for you on the ocean program review stuff.
The Chairman: Okay. Michael, what we need to know is what in the name of goodness is going on between the departments.
Mr. Michael Turner (Deputy Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard): That's a very good question.
The Chairman: When is this merger taking place and how many vessels are going to be leaving my port in Halifax? What about all those employees we've got, both at BIO and at the coast guard complex down at the bottom of Parker Street? Can you tell us the policy context that this is taking place in, what is the timeframe and what is most likely going to happen to the service that is provided?
Mr. Turner: That's exactly what I hope to do. We have put an insert in your briefing box at tab 6 on this subject, and I've just added three or four extra pages. I gave the clerk some loose pages to add to that.
I'll run through parts of this quite quickly on the expectation that, as you said, Mr. Chairman, there will be questions we can use to clarify and answer the serious questions, such as which ships and where and so on.
We will look at it first from the coast guard point of view, what we're doing and how this came about, putting together the two major organizations. Then we'll have a brief look at the program review in the coast guard and what we're doing as our part of meeting the bottom line, and then we'll have a look at the future of the new Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Then Martha will be able to provide significant additional detail on the program review initiatives and the various things that are under way within the rest of DFO.
With that in mind, you will see on the second page of your briefing material from us a slide entitled ``Coast Guard Renewals''. It is intended to illustrate that over the last couple of years we've had a number of things on the go in four main categories: becoming more client-focused; being more businesslike in our operations; having stronger management and more independent from the day-to-day bureaucracy of government; and being a 24-hour operational organization. It's all aimed at having a stronger, more client-focused, businesslike and independent coast guard.
The program review is at the next page and shows how this plays into the program review decisions that have been made. The next page is just the usual five items, with 6.1 being portability, considerations with respect to program review and how we should examine all our programs. The following page, entitled ``CCG Program Review'', briefly outlines the kinds of things we're doing internally within the coast guard that I can come back to and answer some more specific questions to.
I'll just speak to you briefly at this point about the kinds of things we're doing as we get together with the other department and merge the organizations, put more of the focus on commercial transportation support with those commercialized organizations, such as the major ports, and leave part of it behind within the Department of Transport, which has a focus these days on the movement of goods and people for commercial purposes in transportation. Therefore, we're looking at areas such as withdrawing from the management of commercial ports.
The Chairman: What does that mean, Michael?
Mr. Turner: The Standing Committee on Transport's report, tabled yesterday afternoon, made recommendations as to the port structure. It suggested that Canada Ports Corporation should be abolished and that the three separate pieces of legislation essentially should be melded into one and a new ports desk or office set up within Transport with a view to taking all the commercial ports that are financially self-sufficient, economically viable on their own, including -
The Chairman: Such as Halifax, Montreal, Saint John, N.B., Vancouver, Prince Rupert -
Mr. Turner: Yes, and it could possibly include a number of the harbour commissions and possibly a few of the ones we've operated in harbours and ports at the coast guard. To the extent practical, putting those out in the community run by local organizations, more at arm's length from the department -
The Chairman: Tell me what the impact of that would be. What would you do in Halifax harbour that you wouldn't be doing in Halifax harbour already?
Mr. Turner: As the coast guard, you wouldn't see any change at all.
The Chairman: Yes, because you don't do ice-breaking and things like that, aids to navigation. What would you do about the St. Lawrence Seaway?
Mr. Turner: We do aids to navigation plus traffic services. We do all of that and we'll continue to do that.
The Chairman: It's always dangerous to talk about committee reports. Although we all think they're important because we're members of committees, sometimes other people who are policy implementers don't think they're terribly important.
.1550
I've read that report. I think it's a good report. I served on that committee. I sat in when it went to Halifax to look after our interests - at least, I hope they were heard.
What does it mean if you're moving, as we now move with the coast guard, toward being all those things you just mentioned? What are the things you currently do that you will not do? That's the easiest way for me to get at it.
Mr. Turner: In the context of the standing committee's report, the kinds of things we currently do that we will not do in the future are the operation of the commercial ports, the dredging of channels that go into those ports -
The Chairman: It will then be on a cost-recovery or privatized basis?
Mr. Turner: Exactly. It will be done through the private sector or directly managed by the port as a commercial entity.
The Chairman: What percentage of your revenues are expended on those activities?
Mr. Turner: With respect to the dredging side, Mr. Chairman, it varies tremendously from year to year, depending on the volume of work. It costs several million dollars a year. It's not a major portion of our budget.
Harbours and ports operations in total are roughly $95 million and there are about another $20 million to $30 million, depending on the capital works under way. A portion of those would become commercialized, in the sense the committee recommended, if the governments accepted those recommendations. That, of course, remains to be seen, as you can appreciate.
Mr. McGuire (Egmont): How would you expect a harbour like Summerside, with the revenue it generates, to pay for dredging?
Mr. Turner: That is exactly the question the department is going to have to study. It is going to have to take the standing committee's report and look at that in the context of what would constitute a national commercial port system.
In fact, sir, Summerside is precisely the example I've used in some of our internal discussions within the department. I've said that before we get too far down the road of assuming the national ports system consists only of ports that are entirely self-sufficient, we obviously have to give consideration to ports that are providing vital access to areas where there's no other efficient means of moving goods in and out. We also have to give consideration to certain remote sites.
As the chairman will be aware, I believe the standing committee in fact recognized that as well. It suggested there should be a second tier - if I could call it that - of ports that, while not commercial in the sense of being fully self-sufficient financially, are a necessary part of the transportation system. They would remain with the Department of Transport and be operated by Transport in those cases.
Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): I gather from your response that we're talking about commercial ports. But I'm thinking more in terms of - I'm not quite sure what you would call this - a fishing port.
I, of course, am very concerned about the dredging aspect also in terms of fishing ports that in fact are still very essential but could never be able to sustain themselves or be able to afford to do the dredging that's required.
Mr. Turner: Exactly. The discussions we've had within the Department of Transport and with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans considered the possibility that the ports that were not going to be part of the commercial ports network or national ports system should be passed to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans along with the rest of the coast guard operations. They would be managed as part of an integrated small craft harbours and ports operation, including the dredging. That would accommodate those kinds of situations.
I noticed in the recommendations that the standing committee was suggesting otherwise. It recommended that all the ports should remain with Transport. Obviously the government will have to decide what it wants to do.
The Chairman: Michael, can we forget yesterday's report? I do think the report is heading in the same direction as the department; I don't think they're on two different tracks there.
You have some marine policy now. There's a policy that has been announced by the government. Its intention is to fold these two fleets together. I'm not trying to jump over all of this stuff. What are the services you currently offer that would not be offered once this takes place?
Could you tell me a little bit about commercialization? Does that mean contracting out, or does it mean the coast guard would be offering its services, if there was a privatized port, on a fee-for-service basis?
Mr. Turner: Well, you'll find most of those answers in the deck one way or another. Maybe the easiest way would be for me to answer your questions while going through some of these pages and stopping at specific points you've raised. Questions on what would remain with the coast guard, what services are affected, and so on are in fact in here.
The question about charging another port for services is one the departments haven't grappled with at all at this point. We're waiting to see where we'd come out on that one.
.1555
The kinds of things we were looking at in our case.... On the coast guard and program review page, you'll see some of the things we've talked about on withdrawing, privatizing or contracting. These are independent of the question of the integration of Fisheries and Oceans, of the merger that has taken place.
You can see a number of them listed, such as the possibility of our no longer providing ship-shore communications in some areas. It also speaks to some of the integration work that's under way internally between traffic systems and the coast guard radio stations. Those are all cost-saving kinds of measures, but this is not to suggest they aren't things that won't be done in the future.
The Chairman: How many ports are designated as ports for the Canadian Coast Guard?
Mr. Turner: We have roughly 330 ports that we operate.
The Chairman: What are we going to end up with at the end of this?
Mr. Turner: I have no idea yet.
The Chairman: What do you anticipate?
Mr. Turner: Anticipation at this point is a bit premature, because it depends on what the Department of Transport feels would be the commercial port system, a national port system, at the end of the day.
As I said, the thinking was that there would be a number of national ports operated at arm's length, a second tier of ports that would be operated from within the department and encouraged towards self-sufficiency, and a third tier of ports that are required for remote access and other kinds of situations that obviously are not commercial and would in fact be coming with the coast guard to DFO.
While we've done some numbers to determine the range in which our 330 ports fall, there has been no decision made at this point. The majority of them are never going to be in a position to be self-sufficient in the financial sense, even in the area of O and M, let alone O and M and capital.
You asked about the number of ports that might stay as part of a commercial national ports system. Of the 330 ports we now operate, the discussions within the department at this point have focused on a range of 10 to 45 ports. It is not anticipated the rest ever would be in a position to be commercial ports, in terms of what the Department of Transport is interested in operating in the future.
On the page entitled ``DFO-Coast Guard Merger'', I've indicated a bit of the background to the issue with respect to the fleet you mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman. As you will be aware, back in 1992 there was a study done by the government looking at whether we should integrate the two main civilian fleets of the government belonging to Fisheries and Oceans and the coast guard.
At that time the conclusion was that while there were savings to be had, it probably was not worth the tremendous disruption that could result.
The fiscal situation is somewhat different these days. In 1994 we had another look at this. At the time it was simply done in the context of fleet integration and whether the coast guard should be a more independent organization, at arm's length.
In the fall of 1994, Minister Tobin approached Mr. Young with the proposal that we in fact consider the possibility of a larger-scale merger of most of the functions, activities, programs and fleet of the coast guard with the entire Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Over the last few months that study was undertaken, it was put to the Prime Minister, and agreement was reached that it made sense to do so.
I need not go into detail on the next couple of pages. They simply indicate some of the background and rationale for why we felt that was necessary and appropriate. Much of it relates to the question of a response to the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology, the NABST report, and the need for the government to be doing a better job in terms of oceans management.
As one person put it quite perceptibly, you have a department of fisheries and oceans, but a large D, large F and small O. Part of what we're trying to accomplish through this merger of the coast guard and the existing DFO is a large D, large F and large O. This would be a department that has a much broader approach to oceans management as well as resource conservation and marine safety environmental protection.
At the same time it will achieve some efficiencies by putting the fleets together, integrating them as part of the coast guard, and, in certain cases, integrating the bases in our regional offices. As a result and in order to do that we have booked some savings within the program review.
We believe the combination will provide a better capability for things like marine science in the Arctic. A classic example was a better capability in terms of offshore enforcement as demonstrated by last summer's trip to the Pole by the Louis S. St. Laurent.
Another example was the recent situation off Newfoundland with the turbot fishery and our European friends.
We'll also have a more cohesive approach to environmental protection in the oceans as well as more of a single window for fisheries and the fishing industry in Canada.
There are a lot of similarities, a lot of complementarities, between the departments. In fact this is apparently the third time since Confederation that the two organizations have been together in one department under one minister.
.1600
We both have large professional staff in the marine fields, of course, and extensive operations, bases, ships, and so on. It makes a lot of sense to put them together for a more effective organization.
We're about the same size in terms of organizations, roughly 6,000 people in the coast guard, including support staff, personnel, finance, and so on in Transport. There are roughly the same numbers in DFO. For a department with numbers in the neighbourhood of 12,000, the budget is in the neighbourhood of $1.4 billion.
In the case of the program review both will be trending down significantly, and Martha Hynna will have some additional information on that. We've tried to indicate some of the background and benefits in the deck. The page that discusses the projected impact on Transport Canada in fact speaks to the very point you raised, Mr. Chairman: what stays, what goes?
What in fact has already gone will have been transferred to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as of April 1 past. These are all the safety and environmental operations of the coast guard, its people, its assets, its programs, ships, etc., with the exception of two main branches, the ship safety regulatory branch, and the harbours and ports branch.
The former is staying in Transport, because we are in the process of sorting out what degree of regulatory responsibility for shipping and vessels at sea should a Department of Fisheries and Oceans have. For example, should DFO have responsibility for recreational boating and fishing vessels, or should there be one department that does it all, as is currently the case within Transport? We expect to decide on that within the next few months.
In the case of harbours and ports the intention was to wait until the standing committee had made its report and give the Department of Transport the opportunity to work with the system over the summer to determine whether and to what extent the recommendations should be accepted. We would then make recommendations to the minister that he can take to cabinet. So we hope the question of the harbours and ports - which stay and which go, as we were just discussing - will be clarified some time later this year.
In the meantime, as you'll see from the list, all the activities, programs, resources of ships related to search and rescue; aids to navigation; our traffic management and communication functions; our ice-breaking; the science support we provide; the fisheries support we provide to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; and our marine pollution operations, including the oversight and response capability, are all now with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as part of DFO and reporting to Minister Tobin.
As I indicated, we're still reviewing the safety regulation of enforcement and the non-commercial harbours issues. As I mentioned on the last page, we would hope to sort those out over the next few months.
Transport will be left with a focus on commercial transportation, shipping policy in terms of commercial policy internationally and domestically, and safety policy. Safety regulation, in terms of commercial transportation activities in particular, will remain with the Minister of Transport, as will certain residual economic regulation activities, and, of course, oversight of what I referred to as commercialized operations, as well as whatever set of ports becomes the national ports system, plus the seaway, pilotage and other services like that. There will be a need for a strong linkage with the department as well.
DFO will then be a strengthened department with an improved operational capability in Canada's marine areas. The coast guard within DFO will be the main marine operational arm of DFO, and therefore of the federal government, and will have a strengthened focus on oceans management and a strengthened capability as well as a strong focus on resource conservation.
On the summary page I've indicated within our program review the kinds of reductions we see coming about over the next few years. As part of this we have calculated roughly $25 million in savings from the fleet integration between the two organizations. We expect to seek out other savings and things like integration of bases and other resources.
To respond to a comment you made earlier, it's not yet at the point where I can indicate certain specific vessels and certain specific bases are likely to be decommissioned. We are looking at that issue with an operational team that is considering the total workload of the programs and the department, the total fleet that is available to us and the best way to use that in the interests of citizens and the taxpayer. What is not required can then come off the table essentially as a savings.
As a result of the work done last summer we have made certain assumptions on the number of vessels that might represent a possible reduction, though we've still not put actual names on them.
.1605
The vision we're looking for in terms of the future of the new department is one where Fisheries and Oceans would be a world leader in oceans and marine resource management, as we've indicated in the papers we've circulated. That implies something greater than the existing considerable role DFO has already played in this country.
In terms of the mission for the department, we're looking at words. We're still working with our staff across the country. We're looking at this in terms of managing Canada's oceans and waterways so that they are clean, safe, productive and accessible, ensuring sustainable fisheries resources and facilitating marine trade and commerce.
There is a series of what one might call business lines indicated in the material I gave you. The new department is still going to be focusing on fisheries management. It's going to be a high priority.
Priorities also include marine safety in the future in combination with the coast guard; environmental management and protection; facilitation of marine trade and commerce and oceans industries development; understanding the oceans and ocean science; and, of course, international relations.
While there are certainly going to be some reductions in the overall funding - and I can certainly speak to those if there are specific areas of interest in the kinds of things we have under way - we think that between the two organizations, we're going to have a much stronger Department of Fisheries and Oceans for this country.
The Chairman: Thank you. I have a couple of questions. After this takes place, what are you not going to be doing tomorrow that you were doing?
I ask this because when we go out west I'm sure there will be some apprehension that some of the services currently offered by the Canadian Coast Guard are not going to be offered because of the downsizing and merger. I don't know that. What, if any, are the things you're currently doing that you're not going to be doing at the end of the process?
Second, you deal with your fleet integration. I come from Dartmouth. We have two fleets. That means some of that fleet isn't going to be there, because you're trying to get some economies of scale. You're reducing redundancies and people by 358 full-time equivalents. Is that what FTEs mean?
Mr. Turner: Yes. That's correct, but the numbers are probably considerably higher when you take into account the other programs that will be affected.
The Chairman: Why don't you tell me about that? So the first question is, what are you not going to do after this that you did before, which you didn't tell me?
The second question is about your full implementation. It is correct that the $25 million represents the fleet? Tell me how many boats and ships you have, how many ships the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has, and how many you're most likely going to end up with.
Mr. Turner: Let me start out with the more difficult one, about what we won't be doing in the future. It's important to differentiate the answer, in the sense that there are some things we're not going to be doing in the future that really have no bearing on the merger. This would have been the situation in any event.
In other words, through the changes we're making in the context of program review, which would have proceeded whether or not there was a merger between the departments, in that light, for example, the most controversial and high-profile issue you'll be faced with on the west coast is lightstation destaffing.
The Chairman: I'm glad you choked on that, because we're probably going to get that when we get out there.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Turner: There are a lot of people on the west coast who will choke on that.
The Chairman: You have to understand, Michael, that I had lighthouse keepers in my family, out at at St. Paul Island at one point.
Mr. Turner: There's no question that in terms of the marine traditions of this country, lightkeepers have done marvellous service for all of us over the years. In a sense, it's the passing of an era.
As you also know from your background and your riding, we essentially have no manned lightstations left in the Maritimes with the exception of three or four sites that are unusual ones, such as Machias Seal Island.
The Chairman: You have some down on Grand Manan. That's called Machias Seal Island....
Mr. Turner: Yes, that is on an extension of the Canada-U.S. border.
The Chairman: Yes, it's in disputed waters.
Mr. Turner: That's right. That's why the lightkeeper is still there; he knows where his paycheque comes from.
The Chairman: That's good. I hope you keep him there.
Mr. Turner: We have Grand Manan. It's called Gannet Walk. We have a third site in the Maritimes called Letete Passage.
The intention is to destaff those stations, but we're still considering the details on those three, whether or not to proceed with them all. We've made our recommendations to the minister.
We haven't had anything on Sable Island for many years. We destaffed that one a long time ago. The Atmospheric Environment Service, the weather service, has maintained people there for weather services, but not as part of a lightstation.
.1610
In Newfoundland we have quite a number that are still staffed.
Mrs. Payne: What would be the determining factors as to whether you staff or destaff?
Mr. Turner: Safety, in a word. The whole approach to destaffing of lightstations is based upon whether we can replace the services that are provided for the aids to navigation with equipment at less cost and whether there are other safety services being provided by the lightkeeper that are incidental to their main job of keeping the light.
This is where we have run into some concern on the west coast and Newfoundland, in the cases where lightkeepers are doing other duties as well in the service of the local community and local mariners.
In the St. Lawrence River system, we've had no lightkeepers for a long time. It is the same thing in the Great Lakes. We've destaffed them all, every one, and we've had no difficulties and no problems. As with the Maritimes, it has been a highly successful program. We have saved millions of dollars, without any evidence that safety has been compromised in any way.
In the case of Newfoundland, roughly half of the stations had already been destaffed in previous years, and what we're now proposing is to destaff the rest of them over the remaining years. We have carried out a series of public consultations and our recommendations are now before the minister.
Mrs. Payne: I'm sending the minister a book on Newfoundland lighthouses.
Mr. Turner: There are many, and some of them are excellent. I have a number of them myself.
The Chairman: As an aside, if you're destaffing all over the place as a policy and you're automating, why wouldn't it have also been done in Newfoundland prior to this?
Mr. Turner: It was. Half of them were done.
The Chairman: Yes, but all of them were done everywhere else.
Mr. Turner: That's right. That related specifically to the condition of the lightstations at the time. Considerably more work was required to bring them up to a modern standard such that the new automated equipment could be housed in them.
The Chairman: Once again, you've got the crumbs down in Newfoundland. You waited until everybody else was fixed up.
Mrs. Payne: This is not for the record.
Mr. Turner: We did spend several million more in Newfoundland in order to accomplish that, so it all works out.
On the west coast, where you are going, what you will find is that the really sensitive issues are not the questions so much of the lightkeeper duties of keeping the light and turning the foghorn on and off. Some will complain the equipment isn't reliable. It's at least in part because we've had no particular need to make sure it operated in an unattended mode.
The real concerns on the west coast, I would suggest you will find, relate more to supplementary safety services, such as weather observations for small boats, including fishers, and for light aircraft. In those areas you will find that there are a number of deficiencies in the system that people are very concerned about.
Lightkeepers have been filling the gap, so to speak, taking observations, conveying the information over the radio, both to a -
The Chairman: Is that part of the job description, Michael, that they actually did that to supplement?
Mr. Turner: No, it wasn't.
The Chairman: They did it on their own?
Mr. Turner: They did it largely on their own. In some cases it was not in their job descriptions, but they did it for a small stipend from the weather office.
The Chairman: Ah, moonlighting.
Mr. Turner: It's hard to moonlight when you don't really have any fixed hours of work. This is a point of interest.
The Chairman: Moonlight, daylight.
Mr. Turner: Lightkeepers are the last group in the federal government employee groups that don't in fact have fixed hours of work in their contract. The other area is in search and rescue, small boat search and rescue, support for fishing and pleasure boating activity along the coast, where there had been concerns that the removal of lightkeepers could result in a downgrading of that service.
From time to time lightkeepers have performed very heroically and have been very effective in responding when cases have occurred that have been in the immediate vicinity of the lightstations. With only 35 lightstations along hundreds and hundreds of kilometres of coastline, their effectiveness in that sense is somewhat minimized, if not minimal.
While several occasions have sprung up in the last few years where lightkeepers have been an effective component in providing a response, very often it has been a question of who gets there first. If the lightkeeper was in the local area, he was able to go out and perform the service necessary very quickly.
I don't mean to downplay it. It has been an important contribution, but the safety system overall has now matured to the point where we feel that in most cases on the west coast the stations can be safely destaffed.
The Chairman: We only have a few more questions for you. Could you tell me again, are there some services you are offering now that you're not going to offer for whatever reason? Second, are there some that are going to be on cost-recovery?
In other words, if I'm a boater and I'm out there and I get in trouble and you guys are there, you're still going to show up, are you not?
Mr. Turner: Absolutely.
The Chairman: Is there going to be a bill in the mail?
Mr. Turner: No, you don't need your Visa card.
The Chairman: That may be enough to throw yourselves to the elements knowing a bill was coming from the government. Right?
.1615
Mr. Turner: I was attempting to answer the questions about what we won't do, and of course we got into some detail on lightstations. What we won't do is keep manned lightstations if in fact the minister agrees we should destaff the rest of them. But the safety services will continue.
We spoke earlier about not running all the commercial ports any more and about not doing some of the dredging, but other than that the main programs and functions of the coast guard will continue, but will continue as part of DFO.
On the question of cost recovery, we do have tariffs in place for a number of things now, including operation of harbours and ports and some of our safety inspections that are still at Transport. The department has of course been urged by the government to increase the level of cost recovery on the marine side, and you will have no doubt noticed an announcement in the budget statements concerning the intention to develop proposals and options for a fee for en route services, it was called, for coast guard, until roughly next year.
We are currently working with a group of users toward identifying as carefully as possible what levels of service are appropriate in each of our various programs and we have a series of consultation meetings now under way right across the country to look at this levels-of-service issue.
The Chairman: Do you know if that includes aids to navigation and things like that?
Mr. Turner: Yes, aids to navigation -
The Chairman: That was pretty controversial. At the time of the previous minister, the Tory minister, there was a document leaked dealing with that. I never in my life saw a man scurry as quickly away from a piece of paper as he did. But I take it that's still kicking around your department.
Mr. Turner: Very much so. As I said, by this fall we would expect to be in a position to go out to the user groups and talk about what form a user services fee should take. Should it be in the form of a tax, as was suggested by the standing committee? Should it be direct fee for service, or some combination, and how would that be accomplished? We're certainly not looking at total cost recovery, by any stretch of the imagination, but we are looking for a significantly greater degree than we get now.
The Chairman: It's funny, because you save on some of the regimes of cost recovery that you're looking at. If you're working on cost recovery on aids to navigation, that is a significant cost to the government through the service offered. Is this an insignificant saving, or is it a large saving?
Mr. Turner: I want to be careful that I differentiate saving from revenue. We are working at reducing our cost to a minimum with the various user groups and through modernization -
The Chairman: While increasing your revenue.
Mr. Turner: - and we expect to decrease our costs roughly in the neighbourhood of $83 million over the next few years and to increase our revenues by roughly the same amount over that time period. It would be through a combination of the tariffs that are already in place plus some kind of new user fee. At this point it's not more closely or carefully defined than that.
Mr. McGuire: Mr. Chairman, I have two questions. You say this is the third time since Confederation you've done this. What has been the experience in the past? Why are we centralizing, decentralizing, or whatever? How's that going to apply to this particular amalgamation?
Second, you said there will be some base closures. What criteria are we using to determine which ports will stay open and which will close?
Mr. Turner: On the first one, the history is most instructive if you read the rationale and the reasons for the decisions made at the time. Sometimes they are lost in the archives, but it has a lot to do with the development of the country and its history. At the time of the formation of the Department of Transport we were in a period of high growth in the transportation industries. I understand from the history that the feeling of the government of the day was it was best managed by putting together in one department a number of the various services that were then offered by the fisheries and marine service.
Subsequently, as the country has matured, we are now at a point where many of the industries are very mature in this country in the transportation sector. You are aware that the Department of Transport is spinning off, if I can put it that way, and commercializing, to use the minister's phrase, most of its major operations, including the air traffic systems - air navigation systems, they are called - into a not-for-profit corporation. It is including the sale of Canadian National, including the devolution of airports out to local authorities, the Canadian airport authority model, in addition to a number of other smaller initiatives.
In the case of the coast guard, the coast guard's services and operations got to the point where it was felt it was better to fit what remains with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans than it was to keep it with the Department of Transport. This isn't a question of necessarily the wrong answer at the time. I think it was a question of the right answer for the times in the previous occasions.
.1620
To go to your second question concerning the future of bases, we don't know for sure what bases, subbases or sites would be closed or amalgamated. We are just at the very preliminary stages of looking at that.
I think it's probably apparent to anyone that where you have large physical facilities in close proximity, you want to look at whether you're making the best use of those and not by putting your money into two different sites if we can do it better from one.
To take a simple example like St. John's, Newfoundland, there's a major coast guard base there and just a few metres down the wharf there's a DFO dock as well. In that case, it probably will be that that one major coast guard base will provide all that service.
In cases like Dartmouth, which the chairman will be most familiar with, we have the Bedford Institute. This has a very strong science role and certain workshops and capabilities, but has a limited capability to support the major ships of the coast guard, for example, whereas the operations on the coast guard base are very different. They have deep water accommodation for the big ice-breakers.
It's not simply a question of saying that we'll shut one and keep the other. You have to analyse each against the basic criteria of what the program requirement is in this area and how we can achieve it most efficiently.
We are looking in fact at bringing in outside consultants from the private sector who have developed some methodologies they have been using with companies and other departments, such as DND, to look at how we can maximize the use of our physical facilities. I expect that is going to be one to two years yet before we really have a good fix on that.
Mr. McGuire: You should keep an eye on that. DND doesn't exist in P.E.I. any more. We would like to keep the coast guard.
The Chairman: How many ships do you have in the combined fleet, what is likely to be left after, and how does that shake out on both coasts?
Mr. Turner: Without meaning to be facetious, it depends on what one defines as ships.
The Chairman: Anything that floats. What have you that floats that isn't going to be floating for you after this thing happens?
Mr. Turner: We have literally hundreds of things that float between the two departments. We have small work boats, scientific and hydrographic launches, small patrol vessels, small search and rescue vessels, work boats for aids to navigation, and so on, all the way up to the big ice-breakers. We have to look at each in terms of the class.
Within the coast guard we have roughly 43 watchkeeping vessels that have a permanent crew on board and can stay out at sea. We have roughly the same number of watchkeeping stations along the shore that are sort of like fire stations, where the people don't live on the vessels but go out to respond to an incident.
DFO has a similar number of significant vessels in the 80 to 90 range - that's fairly close - and, like us, a couple of hundred smaller vessels, work boats, barges, and so on.
In looking at just the significant vessels of the two departments, our early estimates in which the figure was based were probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15 to 20 vessels that can be discontinued by looking at the areas where we both have operations at the present time and using the most effective vessel, as opposed to having them both continue.
That's an analysis we have now started. We are now operating and managing the fleet as one over the last month, since this integration took place, and we have begun the process of looking at how to put the fleets together in more detail and looking at the total program requirements.
While there may be 15 to 20 fewer vessels, we're still not in a position to say which ones, although a good number of those will probably be the smaller ones along some coastal areas where there is some overlap between the two departments, the two agencies.
The Chairman: Are there any other questions?
Ms Hynna, you're on.
Ms Hynna: Around the department, as you can imagine, in a new time, we've got the old DFO and the new DFO. The new DFO is combined, and Michael has talked a little bit about that.
I want to talk about specifically the commitments to the program review made for that part of the new department, the business lines that were part of the old DFO - in other words, fish management science and a couple of things in that area.
I think you've got a copy of the docket. We made it available. It's in those books and I thought the best way would be to just go through that.
You will recall that in the budget itself....
The Chairman: What does it look like again? Give us the front.
Ms Hynna: The front page looks like this: The 1995 Budget and Program Review.
The Chairman: We've got it. It's tab 5.
Ms Hynna: You will recall that in the budget for Fisheries and Oceans there were a number of things mentioned. First of all, there was the merger, of course.
.1625
Second was the focus on the DFO core mandate of conservation for sustainable development. Then there was the intention to have increased cost recovery in the area of small craft harbours and inspection; the fact that the fishing vessel insurance program would be divested; that the Newfoundland bait service would be streamlined with increased cost recovery; that the fishing prices support board would be discontinued; and that DFO itself would be designated a most affected department, which means there are a fair number of people who -
Mrs. Payne: Could I just ask a question? On the bait service, when you say streamlined, what do you mean and what kind of cost recovery are we looking at?
Ms Hynna: I can't tell you about the cost recovery at this time because there hasn't been a decision on that. I can't even tell you specifically in terms of the streamline, but we're certainly looking at whether we need as many warehouses as we now have, whether there are as many centres, how we can manage it and deliver it with fewer people.
Mrs. Payne: You don't have any figures?
Ms Hynna: I don't think so at this time. We don't have a decision from the minister yet of exactly how and where it would be done.
I know he's planning to speak to the - I'm not sure. I don't think those decisions are made yet.
Mr. McGuire: On the small craft harbours, that's not the licensing you're talking about, is it?
Ms Hynna: No. Those are the fishing harbours and recreational harbours. There is some cost recovery there now. In some of them some people pay to berth and so on, and we will be looking at that whole approach to small craft harbours and coming up with a more rationalized approach to cost recovery for the services that people receive who berth in those harbours.
Mr. McGuire: The licensing fees are going to dramatically increase. They are going to have harbour authorities formed who will deal with DFO in the future. You are then going to charge them for berthing and use of the harbour, and then, I'm told, the harbour authorities are going to get their operating money and do repairs some other way. How much more money can the fishermen...? What is going to be left with the harbour authorities?
Ms Hynna: The decisions have not been taken. The minister is still considering this, but I can assure you he's very much aware of the fact that there is a limit to how much fishermen and others can do and pay, and that the different types of things that are done have to be taken into consideration so that people are aware of the overall impact and what that will be before a final decision is taken.
Mr. McGuire: Well, if you are going to have harbour authorities, you should leave some money with them if you expect them to do repairs. You had better leave them a way to raise some dollars. It looks like we are taking everything.
Ms Hynna: I think in terms of small craft harbours.... Dick, do you want to...?
The Chairman: Jump in on small craft harbours because I have some questions there too.
Mr. Dick Hodgson (Director General, Program Planning and Coordination, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): First of all, of course, there are two branches of small craft harbours. There are recreational harbours that we're divesting and there's commercial fishing harbours. The plan is to rationalize them in some way. In other words, reduce the numbers so that the available funding is spent more effectively on fewer of them, so there's the rationalization initiative.
Then at this stage there is a fairly nominal cost-recovery initiative. The principal revenue generation initiative on the fisheries side is the access fee. I think we can talk in terms of about 90% of additional revenue being generated through access fees.
The Chairman: Give me a definition. Define an access fee.
Mr. Hodgson: These are the fees charged to fishermen to have access to the fishery.
The Chairman: Licence fees.
Ms Hynna: They're licence fees.
The Chairman: Okay.
Ms Hynna: As opposed to the small craft harbour.
Mr. McGuire: The use of the harbour.
Ms Hynna: Yes, the use of the harbour, where we certainly intend to work through the local users, through harbour authority management structures.
To the extent that there are increased fees to help pay for those costs, they will be set in proportion to the annual cost of operating and maintaining the harbours. They will be set in consultation and working with the harbour authorities. There's nothing specific decided yet.
The Chairman: But Joe asked a good question and maybe I missed the answer. Maybe there wasn't an answer. I don't think there was.
.1630
The question was, if there are going to be fees for use of the harbours, who is going to get paid that fee?
Ms Hynna: There are no final decisions. To the extent that the harbour authority is managing the harbour, the harbour authority gets the fees.
There's always the issue of ongoing operations and the issue of capital. How that comes together has not been worked out, nor exactly how it works. There's not a suggestion that a fee would be taken, go and disappear somewhere in the department, and then the harbour authorities would be expected to carry on and run that harbour without using that. It would all be built in together.
Jack is here. Can you answer that for us?
The Chairman: Jack, do you want to answer that? Pull up a chair, Jack. I don't think he wanted to answer it, but since you turned around, he now feels compelled to.
Mr. Jack Hall (Director, Program Policy Development, Small Craft Harbours Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I've forgotten your question already. I wasn't sure I was going to get an opportunity to answer it. I think it had to do with the harbour authorities and who was going to collect the revenue.
The Chairman: Who is going to collect the revenue, and how does the revenue make its way back into the authorities so that they can run their operations?
Mr. Hall: The idea is that the harbour authority itself will collect the revenues. From that they will pay for the management and the day-to-day operational costs of running harbour utilities, light, heat, power, etc.
Mr. McGuire: Is that going to be totally their responsibility?
Mr. Hall: That will be totally their responsibility, which it hasn't been in the past.
Mr. McGuire: So the total cost of that is theirs?
Mr. Hall: We would hope to reach the total cost of the daily and monthly charges in as soon a period as we can, but over a five-year total. If there isn't that kind of interest there on the part of the fishermen, we probably would be looking toward rationalizing that harbour out of existence. So we hope there are enough fishermen at it.
Mr. McGuire: Fishermen are prepared to pay more of their way. Of course, right now they're not paying very much of their way. They're quite prepared to pay a considerable amount, but how much is too much?
We've got the provinces now passing legislation for automatic dues collection for their association, on top of increased licensing fees, and on top of user fees for the wharf maintenance.
Ms Hynna: In the context of the licence fees or access fees that we've been talking about, we have had some studies done about the overall impact of this on fishermen. They are not yet completed, but they will be taken into consideration before all these decisions.
We're well aware that with the coast guard also looking at some various different kinds of user fees, those have to be taken into consideration too. You can't come at people from five different angles. You need to have an idea of the total impact. If the total impact is something that cannot be borne, then you have to adjust your plans.
Mr. McGuire: Okay, thanks.
Mr. Hodgson: Just to add to that, as Martha has mentioned, there are studies going on and they are just completing now. The intent is that there be a program of consultation once the studies are complete, so that people can understand and respond to the findings of the study.
Mrs. Payne: If I could just respond to the last comment that the studies are under way, it would make more sense in my mind if the consultations took place before the studies were done.
Ms Hynna: I think the idea is that they've obviously talked to people in the industry in order to do these studies. They wanted some information so that the consultations would be based on good information.
Mrs. Payne: The question I wanted to ask was to follow up on the one Joe asked.
We know that some years ago there was a wharf and a harbour put in every nook and cranny in Newfoundland. I know that in my riding in particular there are quite a few of them. I wondered why they were ever put there. I agree quite readily with removing some of them. If the community wants to maintain them, fine, go ahead and do that.
.1635
The concern I have is the one Joe just mentioned. I'm a little confused as to who's responsible for the maintenance of these, whether it's the small craft harbours, harbour authority, or who. I'm not quite sure.
The Chairman: Or coast guard, because there's a mix here.
Mrs. Payne: Or coast guard.
Mr. Turner: Potentially, that would depend upon which were transferred over from Transport Canada, of course.
Mrs. Payne: In any case, the concern I have is in fact with the situation we have in Newfoundland, particularly in my riding. These harbours are essential for the fishermen. Despite the cod fishery, there is still some fishing going on and it's vital that it be maintained, but the community and the fishermen are in no way able to do it. Their livelihoods have been cut to a shred and there's absolutely no way in the world they could ever be able to maintain these harbours, nor could the community.
Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, I don't think there's any suggestion that we would abandon the major maintenance of the harbours. I don't think there was a suggestion that the daily or monthly operation would necessarily be very expensive. It depends on the size of the harbour. It wouldn't necessarily require a full-time manager. It may be only part time. It may be a group of people who get together and form a harbour authority and deal with it on their own so that there are no salaries paid out in terms of managing the harbour, but they would look after their monthly charges, utilities, etc.
The Chairman: All the members here are from Atlantic Canada, so we all know that the state of some of these facilities is pretty bad. Over a period of fifteen years we've seen massive reduction after reduction after reduction in the small craft harbours budget. I can remember the budgets being cut back in 1984. Mr. Kean was the head of it. He had one hell of a time, and the only thing that saved some places at that time was that we had a federal bail-out scrap program and a lot of the stuff went over to that. We had the SEIP program. You know what I'm speaking about. Those things went in and they were in addition to regular programs.
What happens? Where are we going on this? In small craft harbours, if you have seven or eight souls who are fishing out of a small harbour that has not had the benefit of good maintenance - they have a breakwater that's not in good shape, they have a wharf - are they eventually going to have to be in a position to fully pay for the ongoing facility or move somewhere else to fish from?
Mr. Hall: I suppose that could happen in the long run. It may be. As a member here said, there are a lot more harbours than we really need. I can't say the budget has really gone down; it just hasn't increased that fast. I recall in 1972-73, when we took over the program from Transport and Public Works, we had about $8 million. It increased to about $30 million and I think it's about $60 million today. It's never enough to do all the things you want to do.
One of the ideas in attempting to have fishermen more involved in it is they would pay for those day-to-day services, for example, which are now costing $9 million, broadly speaking.
The Chairman: What kinds of services, Jack? What's included in that package?
Mr. Hall: These are things like lighting, garbage, waste oil disposal, all those kinds of things that go on that you pay monthly bills for and that the department has been picking up for years.
We also understand that fishermen on the Atlantic coast.... They pay on the Pacific coast and they pay in Ontario, but they do not pay on the prairies and vessels under 45 feet don't pay in Atlantic Canada, in Quebec, unless they're under harbour authority.
So in order to introduce that kind of participation by the fishermen, we know it's going to take some time. We don't intend to do it all in one year, but we hope to introduce it. It's a cultural change.
Mrs. Payne: I would also hope, Mr. Chairman, that it will not be done without a lot of consultation.
The Chairman: Derek, do you have a question?
Mr. Wells (South Shore): Was the moratorium taken off the formation of harbour authorities?
Mr. Hall: Yes. We are forming harbour authorities now without a moratorium. It was removed a short time ago.
Mr. Wells: So it's actually filtered down to the -
Mr. Hall: Yes. I believe there are some in Nova Scotia in particular that are in the process of formation right now.
Mr. Wells: Do you know how many harbour authorities there are? What percentage of harbours would be managed by harbour authorities?
.1640
Mr. Hall: I think there are 140-some harbour authorities managing about 200 harbours out of about 1,320 fishing harbours.
Mr. Wells: I'm still not clear about their full responsibility, because I know many of these harbour authorities are charging more than small craft harbours are charging for certain services. Has there been any attempt to try to match up the charges that someone is paying, for example, for lobster carts at a harbour authority wharf and a lobster cart at one of your wharves?
Mr. Hall: I'm not sure I understand. What do you mean? They pay a licence fee or a lease fee for a -
Mr. Wells: There are different rates. The harbour authorities and small craft harbours charge different amounts.
Mr. Hall: Yes. The amounts that are charged directly if there's an appointed harbour manager under small craft harbours is in the schedule to the regulations under the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act. The harbour authorities set their own rates in terms of the kinds of levels of management they would want within their own harbour.
Mr. Wells: Are harbour authorities totally responsible, though, for maintenance? I'm not certain of that.
Mr. Hall: No, certainly not major maintenance. They haven't been yet, anyway. We hope they do some minor maintenance. I'm not sure that's been totally defined. What's minor and what's major depends on the size of the harbour.
Mr. Wells: What the minister said, and I believe his statement was quite clear, is that in 1995 we consult and in 1996 we bring in the new fees. When I met with my fishermen down on the south shore I learned that they're expecting to be consulted, so I'm hoping that the consultation is real consultation before the decisions are made.
Mr. Hall: I would expect they would be consulted.
Mr. Wells: I think that's important.
Mr. McGuire: The schedule is supposed to be for April-May but there's been none yet; we're into May and the fishermen are starting to fish.
Mr. Hall: I think those who are interested in forming harbour authorities are in touch with the branch regularly in Halifax.
The Chairman: I'm confused on the harbour authorities. We started a process down in Eastern Passage to get a group together and then I think it went over to.... We started it and stopped it. Is there only one management team name? Are we dealing with harbour authorities? Is there another port management group? Are they all the same when you're...?
Mr. Hall: There are harbour authorities by that name that are incorporated as a group.
The Chairman: There are port committees too, aren't there?
Mr. Hall: There may be a port committee, and their authority may be the same thing -
The Chairman: Which acts basically in an advisory capacity, right?
Mr. Hall: There are only so many officers on the harbour authority. All the fishermen belong to the harbour authority but they may establish a port committee within that.
Mr. McGuire: But the port committees are there now.
The Chairman: There are port committees now.
Mr. McGuire: There's a wharfinger and a port committee right now. They'll be replaced by a harbour -
The Chairman: By harbour authorities. That's my point. They're two different things.
Mr. Hall: A lot of harbours have had port committees for many years.
The Chairman: But a lot of them didn't.
Mr. Hall: That's right.
The Chairman: There's no port committee in Eastern Passage. We started to get one formed...and it will eventually go over to an authority, I guess.
Mr. Hall: I would expect so.
Mrs. Payne: Mr. Chairman, I'm not really clear on what's going on there, and this is a subject that's come up in my riding a number of times in recent weeks and months. I wonder if it's possible to have someone from the department do a briefing on this for us.
The Chairman: Okay.
Can I ask some questions on licensing. We have 15 or 20 minutes. I've gone through this and I think it covers most of what we want. Licensing is a big issue. It's the one that some fishermen are supporting, but until they know what it is, there will be no vocal support for increased licence fees.
You mention here that your access fee.... When did we start calling it an access fee? That is a licence. Is this a licence?
Ms Hynna: Yes.
The Chairman: Your fee strategy is to generate an additional $33 million in year one, growing to $50 million. My two questions are over what period of time is the $50 million, and what percentage increase over what you're currently generating in licence fees is $33 million and $50 million?
Ms Hynna: We're currently generating, in total cost recovered, $26 million, and that's almost all licence. Starting January 1, 1996, which means there will be revenues in the fiscal year 1995-96, we will be imposing a new scale of licence fees that will generate an additional $33 million from the $26 million we now generate. When it's fully implemented it's expected to generate $50 million. Ninety-five percent of that $50 million is in the licence fees. The other 5% is in cost recovery on small craft harbours and inspection. So we will move to $50 million, which means about a total of $75 million per year in cost recovery. We will hold constant at that under the present plans.
.1645
The Chairman: I might have missed something. Licence fees alone, which are currently about $27 million from all fees, will grow by an additional $33 million.
Ms Hynna: That's right.
The Chairman: At which point will it grow to $50 million?
Ms Hynna: Starting in the second year of 1996-97.
The Chairman: So what you're telling me then is that the $33 million is in the first year only, and it's only $33 million because it's only part of the year.
Ms Hynna: That's right.
The Chairman: So you're not looking at an additional fee increase.
Ms Hynna: I'm sorry. Some of the recreational fees may not come into place until this next year, but we're not increasing it.
The Chairman: So if a fisherman comes up...they can expect that on general the $27 million that is currently coming in will be generating an extra $50 million, which is a big increase in fees.
Ms Hynna: Yes. The total generation will be about three times what it is now.
Mr. McGuire: Have you considered a flat fee for lobster fishermen? The schedule I have seen is $100, up to $25,000, and then 3% above $25,000. Why not say it's $800 or $1,000 to have access to the lobster fishery?
Why would you go through all this rigmarole of averaging catches and value of catches over three or four years and saying they owe this much? Why not just go to a flat rate? It would be much simpler and everybody would know what they're going to pay.
Ms Hynna: There will be a flat rate for the specific fisheries. The point is that the amount for each fishery will vary depending on the value of that fishery, and the amount will be determined by looking at the average landed value of that particular fishery.
For a lobster fisherman, it won't go up and down. It'll be a certain amount for the lobster fishermen of that particular fishery, but it will vary between fisheries.
Mr. McGuire: It'll vary between fishermen too.
Ms Hynna: No, it will not vary between fishermen.
Mr. McGuire: It's $100 for the first $25,000, and 3% of -
Ms Hynna: No. As we say, we've had some impact studies done and we'll be consulting on them. The plan, the proposal, is based on the concept that you would set a licence fee for a particular fishery and everyone in that fishery would pay the same licence fee based on the average annual landed value of that fishery.
Mr. McGuire: Is that per fisherman?
Ms Hynna: No, for the overall average landed value of the fishery. If the average landed value of a lobster fishery in this part last year was $50,000, averaged over three years, then the licence fee for everybody in that area in that fishery would be the same and would be based on the assumption of a $50,000 average landed value.
Mr. Wells: Having said that, what's the purpose of your consultation?
Ms Hynna: That's the proposal we're going to consult on, and if it needs to be varied based on what's heard, then there's room for variation.
Mr. McGuire: But there are zones and value to the fishing zones. In western Prince Edward Island you have a fall fishing zone and a spring fishing zone.
Ms Hynna: I'm going to have to get somebody who works in the area of fisheries management to talk to it. Can you help us here, David?
This is David Balfour, who is a director general in the fisheries management branch.
Mr. David Balfour (Director General, Program Planning and Coordination, Fisheries Management Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): What was the question?
Ms Hynna: The question is around the proposed type of approach to access or licence fees.
A voice: Proposed?
Ms Hynna: The need to generate revenues of $33 million in 1995-96 and the additional$50 million is in the budget, but how the licence and access fee will work and how it exactly will look is still at the proposal stage.
Mr. Wells: I know what you're saying, but the words you're using are going to tell what the fishermen have been hearing for years. They're not going to listen to them anyway. You've made your decisions up here and then you're going to go down and do some token consultation with the decisions already made. That's the perception. Now I know why.
.1650
Mr. Hodgson: Since they're just completing their study, the consultants will have consulted in the first instance with what that means to them. They will have reported on that.
The intent over the next three months, at least from here to August, is to go out again and validate whether or not the the implications they've identified are indeed the implications.
Then a decision will be taken in the fall on whether what has been proposed is valid or not. But certainly the formula has not been fixed yet.
Mr. Wells: Have any of the fishing organizations been consulted to date?
Ms Hynna: Yes. In developing the proposals for the program review and for the presentation to cabinet, there was an external advisory committee throughout that had representation from a fair number of fishing organizations.
Mr. Wells: Can you get me the information on who was consulted? I am referring to the groups - I don't mean any individuals - and I would like to know who was consulted in that process.
Ms Hynna: Certainly, we can provide information on who's been consulted so far. The advisory committee consisted of individuals, but they were individuals -
Mr. Wells: I understand that.
Ms Hynna: - who belonged to most of the major groups. But with respect to any other consultation, we'll get you information on anything that's happened so far.
Mr. McGuire: I still don't understand how this is going to work. You're going on a percentage basis. You say an access fee is going to be...some would say it's $100. Plus there's going to be some more. But how is that going to be returned to the individual fisherman? How is he going to know how much he's going to have to pay besides the $100?
The Chairman: Why don't you tell us, David, how this has been proposed?
Mr. Balfour: I'd just add to what Ms Hynna has said.
We're working to a notional target of how much revenue will be generated from an increase in the licence fees. As a point of departure, for consultation and discussion within this framework, work has been done to try to come to a point of departure in terms of the value of that licence or a reasonable possible increase in the licence.
Taking a look at a particular fleet sector, and the average value of landings in that fleet sector, you'd be looking at what the average increase in the licence would be for that fleet sector.
It may be that in the consultation the industry will advise that there could be a different approach taken in terms of how that licence fee should be arrayed, other than everyone in that fleet sector paying the same fee.
The Chairman: But it's fair to say that you have a plan and the plan shows exactly how the fee structure would work in each of those sectors in the fishery? You already have that?
Mr. Balfour: We basically have a package that's been done for analytical purposes, as a point of departure. It says we were trying to achieve a target in revenue, from access fees or licence fees from the fishery, based on the relative value of landings of each fishery. How would that work out? That's what has been done to date in the department.
In addition to that, work is being carried out now to allow us to better understand what could be the ramifications and impacts on the industry and fishermen of those fees, to see if this is realistic or not.
The Chairman: But tell me how you do that, because this is the big issue. This is the big, big issue. Until somebody puts something on the table that everybody can look at, touch, feel, kick, stomp on, throw up in the air, caress, whatever they want to do with it, we're going to have difficulty.
When are you going to go public with whatever you're...? If you're going to go and consult, Dave, you're going to say to them, in the lobster industry in P.E.I. and these zones, we think the fee should be x number of dollars. Then you get the response to that. When does this happen?
Ms Hynna: Apparently some are actually starting as early as this weekend. So the consultations are in the works.
The Chairman: What are you giving them? I'll tell you, we get really annoyed - I'm not annoyed at you guys - as a committee when we find out that consultations are being conducted by departmental officials, sometimes in our ridings, and as members of Parliament we don't know about it, and as members of the committee we don't know about it.
Ms Hynna: We will make sure you are given a full schedule of consultations.
The Chairman: I don't want just the schedule of consultations; I want the material as well.
Ms Hynna: You want that material.
The Chairman: You know, there have been things going on in Halifax. I'm chairman of the committee. I read about them in the Halifax Herald many times. It's a little embarrassing, not that you can go to everything, but it is embarrassing.
.1655
The worst thing that happens to me is when I bump into a fisherman somewhere, he talks about a meeting they had three weeks ago with all these officials from Ottawa, and he knows more about the issues than I do. It wouldn't be terribly hard to be brighter than me, but it makes you look like you're not doing your job.
So if there is some information that is being given.... The same thing happened on TAGS, folks. On TAGS, every fishermen's group in the Atlantic knew everything about that program before members of Parliament or members of this committee knew about it.
We were a little miffed, but we weren't yelling because it means then that we're going to point at ourselves and say, we really don't matter around here because nobody bothered to tell us. If there are documents that are being shared with anybody in the industry with respect to this, will you make sure we get them? Can you do that? That would be great.
Mr. McGuire: On the bona fide licence policy, an individual fisherman may have four, five, or six licences. These fees are per licence, I understand.
Ms Hynna: Again I can't give you those details and how they're going to work; I'm not sure.
Mr. McGuire: We've been told by Mr. Robichaud that there's a fee per licence. So if you hold five or six licences, there are five or six different fees.
In the past, say, if you had a herring licence, and there was a lot of pressure on herring or whatever, you might not fish it that year. But you're going to be charged a licence fee anyway because to hold on to it, you have to pay for it even though you never used it, even though you don't use it for maybe two or three years.
When we caught this in the groundfish fishery, some people who had groundfish licences and weren't fishing groundfish because there wasn't a heck of a lot to get out there, missed out. They weren't part of the problem of overfishing groundfish if they weren't using the licence, yet they were penalized. They lost their licence. I think eventually it was returned, but at the time of the decision, they lost their licence.
Here we have a bona fide fisherman, with four, five or six licences. If he decides to stay at a particular fishery, he's going to be charged the value of that fishery even though he doesn't fish. How are you going to get around that?
Ms Hynna: We will make a note of your concern and make sure that the people working in this area are aware of your concern. I don't have an answer for you today.
An hon. member: It's all yours, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Wells): I've just been elevated. It's 5 p.m. and we're supposed to adjourn at 5 p.m., so I don't know if there is any other.... We have about a minute before we have to go and catch a plane.
Ms Hynna: Mr. Chairman, I just thought you might want to make note that on pages 7, 8 and 9 of the deck there is mention of some specific impacts on the west coast so you will know exactly some of the impacts for the Pacific region. An important one is in the area of enforcement officers.
While there will be reductions in British Columbia and the Pacific region, just as everywhere else in 1995-96, we expect overall reductions of about 40 FTEs - these are people - and the savings are $7.5 million. Despite that, and through reallocation in various ways, we will be increasing the enforcement officers in the Pacific region by 15 to respond to the concerns raised by the Fraser commission.
We will, however, be closing some five salmon enhancement facilities, including four listed on page 8. We will be reducing some of the funds available for the salmon enhancement program. Again that's listed. Those reductions are set out on pages 8 and 9. I wanted to particularly bring that to your attention if you're going there.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Wells): In our discussions this morning it has been off and on.
Ms Hynna: Okay.
Mr. McGuire: Can you elaborate on the closure of fish hatcheries on the east coast? Is it six, nine, or whatever?
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Wells): Quickly, Mr. Doubleday, because we're running out of time.
Dr. William G. Doubleday (Director General, Biological Sciences Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Over the next five years the Department of Fisheries and Oceans intends to divest itself of nine hatcheries it operates in Atlantic Canada, one of which is in Cardigan, Prince Edward Island.
Mr. McGuire: Cardigan and Ellerslie.
Dr. Doubleday: Ellerslie is not one of the hatcheries.
Mr. McGuire: Well, you're closing it anyway. Whatever you want to call it, you're closing it.
.1700
Dr. Doubleday: Ellerslie is not one of those hatcheries. There are nine hatcheries. Cardigan is one; Ellerslie is not.
We have prepared an inventory of all the facilities, their operating costs and assets. We'll be consulting with the various beneficiaries of the salmon hatcheries in the hope that consortia will come forward that will be interested in taking over the operation of these hatcheries for the purpose of salmon enhancement.
They're all continuing in operation this year. The reductions are planned to be phased in at the beginning of next year and onward.
Mr. McGuire: So starting next year you'll be starting to phase out? Do you know the locations? Do you have a list of those locations besides Cardigan?
Dr. Doubleday: There are Cardigan; Charlo; Miramichi; Mactaquac; Saint John, New Brunswick; Mersey, Nova Scotia; Cobequid, Nova Scotia; and Margaree, Nova Scotia. That's eight.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Wells): I think you missed the one in my riding, in the Queens County area, up Caledonia way.
Dr. Doubleday: That's Cobequid.
Mr. McGuire: So Ellerslie is not one of these? It's a station?
Ms Hynna: It's not included in that group. There is the ongoing intention to close Ellerslie, but it's not considered to be one of the hatcheries that are being closed. One of those hatcheries...it's in another category of....
Dr. Doubleday: Ellerslie is not a hatchery, period.
Ms Hynna: It's not a hatchery.
Mr. McGuire: So as you withdraw from them, you'll still be supporting them until some group takes it over, or no group takes it over and you close it anyway?
Dr. Doubleday: We intend to maintain some capability for salmon enhancement in the Atlantic zone, but it's more of a supportive function. Our intent is that the active programs will be taken over by the beneficiaries.
As you know, there's no longer a commercial salmon fishery. With the exception of a few parts of Labrador that are not involved with the hatchery programs, the fisheries are localized in the rivers of origin. It's possible for the benefit to be identified with the relatively restricted groups of people who are using the resources.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Wells): Thank you, Dr. Doubleday. Thank you to the witnesses.
The meeting is adjourned.