FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 15, 2001

• 1816

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): Can we come to order, colleagues? Can we have order over here among our Newfoundland colleagues?

Pursuant to the order from the House of Commons dated Tuesday, February 27, 2001, we'll study the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002, for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

This evening we have appearing before us the Honourable Herb Dhaliwal, Minister, and quite a delegation from the department as well.

I understand, Mr. Minister, you've an opening statement, and from that we'll turn to questioning.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, if there was a floor-crossing in the House today, I think the committee would like to know—if indeed that has happened to the party of Mr. Hearn over there.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): It's never too late to join us, too.

The Chair: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Mr. Chairman, if the minister would kindly grant me another 30 seconds, on behalf of all of those who last week toured the Maritimes, I would like to thank and congratulate the staff who organized the trip: Laurette, who was in charge of logistics; our clerk, who accompanied us and who had prepared everything; Alan, our researcher; the interpreters and—I am not sure what their exact title is—the console operators; the technical crew and everyone else who was there. We had an excellent week, thanks to the absolutely extraordinary support we were given. I would like to congratulate them and thank them. Thank you very much.

[English]

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

The Chair: Agreed, Madam Tremblay.

Mr. Minister.

Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

With me from the department, as you know, we have Dave Bevan, Wayne Wouters, and Liseanne Forand.

I'll make a statement, Mr. Chairman, and then we'll go to questions, but first I'd like to congratulate the committee. I had an opportunity to talk to them at the aquaculture conference. I hope they enjoyed that. It certainly was very interesting to address that group.

[Translation]

Good evening, hon. members. It's a pleasure to be here tonight to present my department's main estimates for the upcoming fiscal year. After my remarks, I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

• 1820

[English]

For all ministers, the tabling of main estimates in the House of Commons is a chance to stop, take stock, and look ahead to the future of our departments. As close witnesses to DFO's activities, you know better than most the challenges we've faced in recent years. Like all federal departments, we were compelled through program review to take a hard, close look at our activities and determine how to maintain our services at a lesser cost. At the same time, we faced a host of new and evolving program challenges: aboriginal fishing rights, aquaculture, oceans responsibilities, and environmental concerns. We also had to contend with the rust-out of our departmental assets and calls to deliver our services differently.

But this committee also knows better than most what we've done to respond to these challenges. We have taken action. We've been finding ways to strategically rebuild and strengthen our key programs and services. Funding was the first step. Over the past two years I've obtained support for significant investments in a range of departmental priorities—priorities, I might add, that this committee played a big role in shaping.

It cost $30 million to repair our small-craft harbours and wharves; $54 million to ensure that DFO's fleet of sea vessels and aircraft is up to par; $18 million to improve our laboratories, which supply us with the critical scientific information we need to make informed decisions about our fisheries; $39.3 million to enhance DFO's capacity to deliver existing science programs; $75 million towards the Program for Sustainable Aquaculture; $41 million over three years to increase fisheries enforcement capacity on both coasts, which was a very important issue to this committee; and $115 million for our search and rescue services.

This is significant funding indeed. With the funding now in place, we're taking the next step and finding innovative ways to build a stronger and more efficient organization, one that can help this key Canadian sector stay poised for success in the future.

Let's start with our fisheries. They're slowly emerging from a difficult period. We saw the collapse of the groundfish industry on the east coast and the decline of some key salmon stocks on the west coast, but the industry is gathering strength. Canada's fish and seafood exports last year reached $4.1 billion, the third year in a row we've seen record high growth. We're also seeing some record shellfish landings in Atlantic Canada. Lobster, scallop, and shrimp are leading the pack, particularly in the Maritimes, and are helping to soften the blow of weaker groundfisheries overall.

We're working hard to maintain this momentum. For DFO, this means finding ways for our fisheries to remain strong and competitive while ensuring that our conservation objectives are continually met. As I said at last year's main estimates meeting, our priority is conservation, protection, and sustainable use. The health of our fish stocks must be assured and we must ensure that harvesting efforts do not exceed the availability of the resource.

This hasn't changed. Conservation will always be a key part of DFO's activities. We're still developing the responsible, conservation-based harvesting strategies that will keep this resource strong in the years ahead. We're working with industry on the second phase of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing Operations. With the code now ratified by over 80% of the industry, we're now in a position to implement it, which will be the focus over the next year.

Keeping our fisheries strong also means making the most of new and expanding fisheries opportunities. DFO will continue to work closely with industry to identify and develop these opportunities and fully realize their potential.

• 1825

One such opportunity is aquaculture. As you know, it was a high priority for me. With a growing worldwide demand for fish and seafood products, this is an excellent opportunity for Canada to augment its traditional seafood supply with fish produced by aquaculture.

In recognition of this potential we took action. The $75 million Program for Sustainable Aquaculture, which I announced last summer, is a clear expression of our commitment to this industry. It gives us the tools we need to help this industry grow while ensuring that its growth doesn't come at the expense of our natural aquatic ecosystems.

[Translation]

We're also implementing a comprehensive action plan for aquaculture, which will include the creation of strong policies and regulations to govern this industry has it expands and grows. Our goal is twofold: to increase the public's confidence in this sector, while helping this sector reach its full potential.

[English]

Working closely with our provincial and industry partners, we're making significant progress. Just last week, and many of you were there, I announced the details of the $20 million Aquaculture Collaborative Research and Development Program, referred to as ACRDP. Through it we're joining forces with industry to jointly fund eligible research projects for aquaculture. It's truly an excellent example of the cooperative vision we share for this innovative young industry.

I'm confident that the steps we're taking will help Canada become a world leader in the development of a sustainable, healthy, and competitive aquaculture industry in the years to come and a model for the rest of the world to follow.

More fundamentally, we're looking at making some changes in the policies governing the Atlantic fishery. The Atlantic fisheries policy review, the first such review in two decades, is a prime example. Quite simply, the review is an excellent opportunity for a wide range of Canadians to make some positive and lasting changes to the Atlantic fishery. From communities, aboriginal groups, fishers, industry, and different levels of government, these perspectives truly matter. So far the level of participation in our consultations has been very encouraging.

Because the review is a mechanism for change, it's also an opportunity to tackle some long-standing concerns head on. For instance, we have long been told that the decision-making process and criteria for fishery access are unclear and too political. We've proposed the independent panel on access criteria, or IPAC, an open, impartial, and transparent group. It will consult with a wide range of interests, each with a stake in the fishery, and it will review the decision-making criteria for new commercial fisheries where resource abundance or landed values have increased substantially.

I think IPAC is exactly the type of innovative mechanism that will create more stability and certainty in the Atlantic fishery in the years ahead.

On the west coast, we're also finding ways to enhance stakeholder and community involvement. Salmon is a good example. Our New Direction for Canada's Pacific Salmon Fisheries document sets out a number of long-term principles to guide this fishery in the years to come in, for instance, conservation, sustainable use, and improved decision-making. It also outlines our commitment to enhancing stakeholder and community input into the decisions affecting salmon. Many communities already have initiatives in place for habitat and stream restoration and stewardship. We're working closely with these communities to identify even more connections among stakeholders, communities, and various levels of government.

The Government of Canada is also contributing $30 million to kick off the Pacific Salmon Endowment Fund. Led by Rick Hansen, the fund is a focused effort to conserve and rebuild salmon stocks in British Columbia and the Yukon.

Beyond our borders, Canada is also active in fisheries issues. We're involved in a number of important international efforts to conserve and manage straddling and highly migratory fish stocks on the high seas. I'm particularly proud of the leadership we've demonstrated in ratifying and promoting the United Nations Fisheries Agreement, or UNFA, a high priority from the start for me as minister.

• 1830

As members of this committee surely know, the aspiration of coastal first nations to participate in the commercial fishery continues to be a big part of our department's work. When I met with you last month, I updated you on my department's progress on the Marshall file. Since then, three Mi'kmaq and Maliseet communities have signed agreements with Jim MacKenzie, our federal fisheries negotiator. Two of them are for a period of three years. Mr. MacKenzie's meetings with communities are ongoing.

As you know, I reappointed Gilles Thériault as the associate federal fisheries negotiator to ensure that the views of the non-aboriginal fishing community continue to be taken into account in the negotiation process. The fishery is, after all, central to them as well.

But as I said last month, we're not operating under any kind of artificially imposed deadline to reach these agreements. In fact, many communities that have yet to reach agreements with Mr. MacKenzie are now fishing peacefully within the commercial season.

These agreements are a way to provide valuable start-up assistance and planning stability to first nations communities, tailored to the needs of each particular community. They are not, however, a requirement for these communities to gain access to the fishery, and neither are they a prerequisite to a peaceful and orderly fishing season. Indeed, our department will continue to issue licences and tags to ensure that first nations can participate in the commercial fishery during the season with the appropriate authorization.

We're not starting from ground zero. I'm very encouraged by the progress we've made so far and by the newly signed agreements I've just mentioned. Mr. MacKenzie will continue his discussions with other first nation communities. Clearly, reaching agreements takes time, and much work remains to be done. For his part, Mr. Thériault will continue to work with non-aboriginal fishers towards our shared goal of a cooperative, peaceful fishery in which conservation remains our paramount objective.

Underpinning all of our fisheries efforts is a commitment to our oceans, the other side of the DFO picture. Our oceans are busy places. Traditional activities such as fishing and shipping are now joined by new and expanding activities—oil and gas development, tourism, and aquaculture. All oceans users—communities, business, and aboriginal groups—deserve a say in how our oceans are managed over the long term.

Managing this growth and these competing interests calls for a coherent, integrated approach. The 1997 Oceans Act gives us just such an approach.

[Translation]

In particular, it opens up many new opportunities to involve Canadians. We're actively engaging communities, stakeholders and citizens on the best possible mix of conservation, sustainable use and economic development for our oceans in the years ahead.

[English]

An excellent example of our commitment is my Advisory Council on Oceans, which I formed last year. The council will provide advice on a wide range of strategic issues and develop ways to balance the intricate web of interests and requirements related to our oceans. It will also foster key alliances among stakeholders and help me to find new ways of collaborating on oceans issues and engaging communities in the decisions that directly affect them.

Through all of our oceans work, we're seeing some great results. We've joined forces with communities, industry, and other stakeholders on both coasts to initiate 18 integrated management planning initiatives in coastal and marine areas. We're continuing to work closely with communities and others to identify and establish marine protected areas, or MPAs. MPA status gives these areas special protection for the marine life that inhabit them while giving scientists and others the opportunity to better understand our marine ecosystems.

We're now working toward the development of a Canadian oceans strategy, a long-term plan that will complement the Oceans Act and help us to increase stakeholder involvement in the decision-making process over the long term while ensuring a healthy oceans heritage for future generations.

DFO remains strongly committed to the range of core programs and services we provide to Canadians. For instance, we remain very much a science department. We have a long and proud history of providing the scientific advice needed to keep our fisheries strong and our oceans healthy. Thanks to the hard work of DFO scientists, Canada is at the forefront of research in a number of areas—fisheries, hydrography, oceanography, and aquatic environmental science. It's a tradition we're proud of and one we're continuing.

• 1835

Habitat conservation, marine ecosystems, aquaculture, ocean climate—all are evolving issues that require research and advice of the highest calibre. The $39 million in new funds I mentioned a few minutes ago is a clear expression of our commitment to scientific excellence. We'll continue to find ways to build on our science capacity in the years ahead.

Marine safety also remains a top priority. Working with the boating community, DFO is implementing new boating safety legislation to ensure the safe and environmentally responsible use of Canada's waterways.

The brave men and women of the Canadian Coast Guard continue to find new and better ways to do what they do best—that is, helping to keep the domestic and foreign boating communities safe throughout Canadian waters.

The budget also expressed our ongoing commitment to a number of other core services and programs, such as improvements to our fleet of sea vessels and aircraft and steady increases in funding for small-craft harbour repairs, culminating in this year's investment of $88 million, a 60% increase from five years ago. It also includes an increase in our fishing enforcement capacity on both coasts as a result of new funding of $41 million over three years. This funding has helped us to strengthen the program by, among other things, converting seasonal positions for fisheries officers to full-time, acquiring new equipment, and testing new technologies.

We made a significant investment of $115 million in our search and rescue services. Among other things, this funding will go towards the establishment of 18 new positions at our rescue coordination centres and the purchase of eight new extended-range lifeboats.

All of these investments are proof positive that we're making some great things happen. We are identifying the needs and we're taking action. I can assure you that we'll continue to take action and find ways to strengthen our programs and services in the years ahead.

In conclusion, honourable colleagues, since I became minister two years ago we've made some positive and fundamental improvements to the programs and services DFO provides to Canadians. While last year put DFO on solid financial footing, the year ahead will be about building on this base, improving our services to Canadians, and finding even more ways to give them a strong and active voice in guiding our department's work.

The initiatives I've mentioned here are going a long way towards doing exactly this. They're helping us to build the active, responsible, and forward-looking department that Canada, with its long and proud fisheries and oceans heritage, so richly deserves.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank this committee, because many of the issues for which we were able to secure new funding were brought forward to me by the committee when I first came before you. You said we needed more money for enforcement. You wanted us to put more money in science. You wanted us to put more money in search and rescue. The government has responded, and now we must ensure that we take those resources and utilize them to best serve Canadians.

I'm happy to be here again and am certainly looking forward to questions from all the honourable members and from the chairman. Thank you very much. Merci.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, for a very detailed presentation.

I'll turn first to Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, in these estimates, I guess the assumption is that when you spend taxpayers' dollars you have authority to do so, and that you can clearly demonstrate that both the authority and the legitimacy are there. I guess the question becomes, what justification do you have for the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars? You can't just say “I think I'll spend some money on this project” and then go and do it. There has to be some legitimate mandate of the federal government before you can spend money.

Is that not a correct assessment of your authority to spend?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: The mandate comes from Parliament. All estimates are tabled before Parliament. Parliament reviews all the estimates, the main estimates as well as the supplementary estimates, and Parliament has the opportunity to look at all the costs. We as a government table all those and in the end Parliament determines the expenditures.

But we have priorities as a government. We lay those out to the public and then we proceed. We also make sure we provide the opportunity for Parliament to review all expenditures of government.

• 1840

Mr. John Cummins: So the fact of the matter is, your authority to spend money is one that is defined by the Constitution and by Parliament. Now, we've been questioning your authority to spend money as a result of the Marshall decision at the Supreme Court of Canada. Recently, Frank Ring, director of aboriginal fisheries for DFO in Moncton, said they're dealing with the bands in P.E.I. on the basis of signed treaties. I guess we might assume that he's correct.

My question earlier today, when I thought about this, was to ask you to produce them, but I did receive in the mail today a copy of the same treaties I received from the Library of Parliament. There are 10 treaties. In my estimation, P.E.I. is not covered by them.

Could you give me some justification for the expenditure of taxpayers' money other than suggesting that you're following the direction of Marshall and fulfilling the obligations under a treaty?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, let me be clear, Mr. Cummins, that a number of acts of Parliament provide a mandate for me as Minister of Fisheries. Some of them I'm sure you're aware of—the Fisheries Act, the Oceans Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act. All these acts provide me with a mandate as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Every expenditure of the government, whether it's by me or any other minister, as you very well know, goes before Parliament. They're approved by Parliament through the normal process. Any expenditure by the Minister of Fisheries follows a process that's the same one for every other minister—i.e., they're tabled for approval by Parliament. So I'm not sure what direction your question is following, because I have to go through the same process as every other minister.

Mr. John Cummins: My question was that you have said on many occasions that you're merely following the direction given by the court in Marshall. Your director of aboriginal fisheries in Moncton has suggested that moneys were being distributed to P.E.I. on the basis of signed treaties. Specifically, then, which of the 10 treaties delivered to my office today from you applies to the natives resident in the province of Prince Edward Island?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: I think the last time I was here we had the same discussion, Mr. Cummins, in terms of, first of all, your reading of the Supreme Court ruling. You read it in the narrowest possible terms. Last time you made the same statement, that because of the geographical area where treaties were signed those first nations were not part of the treaty. What I've said, and I'm saying it again, is that we're following the Marshall ruling, which clearly states that there is a treaty right to hunt, fish, and gather.

Now, we can read those, as you do, in the narrowest way possible, and we'll be in court again. But clearly the courts have asked the government to sit down and negotiate. Otherwise, we can continue to be in court again and again.

Let me say, though, Mr. Cummins, your solution would result in chaos. You've read this is the most narrow form, and what you're saying is, “Don't negotiate, go back to the courts again and again”. But when you go to the courts, Mr. Cummins, there are winners and losers, and sometimes, you know, people lose.

Mr. John Cummins: The question is, which treaty? It's a simple question.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins, hold on.

• 1845

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: We have the opportunity to go before the courts, but I've always said that the way to resolve this is to sit at the table, have a dialogue, and deal with aboriginals fairly. I don't think it helps to spend millions of dollars to go back to the courts. If we can get a negotiated resolution, that's the best way to approach this. Otherwise, we'll continue for years and years, spending tens of millions of dollars going to court.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, I think you failed to provide the justification I asked for, but I'm going to move on, because the way you're passing money out here, I don't think you're living up to the requirements that would be expected by the Treasury Board.

For example, they suggest in the policy on transfer payments, in section 7.51, that:

There is a reasonable expectation that the recipient of a class grant will use the funds for specified purposes or to meet specified objectives.

Contributions are paid on the basis of the achievement of performance objectives set out in a contribution agreement or as a reimbursement of eligible costs incurred or expenditures made by a recipient.

I would suggest that those kinds of expectations are expectations that the community at large has, and I think perhaps your colleagues, when it comes to the expenditure of government funds.

Now, I'd like to know how taxpayers' dollars are being well managed when, as an example, on March 27, 2000, the Native Council of PEI signed a funding agreement for the fiscal year ending March 31 in the amount of $10,220. The cheque was dated March 30. The instruction was that the allowable expenses could not be incurred in the future. Previous months should be left blank. So in a four-day period, the Native Council of PEI was allowed to spend $10,000.

Who was monitoring to ensure that the money was spent the way it was intended? How was it intended to be expended? I'm concerned about that, because I have other examples of the same thing here. In the same timeframe, the Lennox Island Band got $40,000. In the same timeframe, Abegweit First Nation got $30,000 and the Oromocto Band got $30,000. All of it was in the same timeframe—

The Chair: John, the Minister will need time to answer.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, let me assure the members of this committee that anything we do at DFO is fully compliant with Treasury Board guidelines.

I don't agree with your comments, Mr. Cummins, that we aren't doing it according to Treasury Board guidelines. We are.

Mr. John Cummins: Four days to spend the money—

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Let me finish, please.

As well, I have just as much concern as you do to ensure that every dollar from the taxpayer is spent appropriately and there's proper accountability. You've laid out a number of cheques. I'm sure if you had raised these things with me we could have gotten the details, because these are amounts that have not been brought to my attention.

Perhaps my officials can comment on the $10,000 and the other ones, but if you have any concerns with regard to the way in which the expenditures happened, we'd be happy to look at any evidence you can provide that would show that money was inappropriately provided or spent inappropriately.

Perhaps the Deputy Minister has answers more specific to your concern.

The Chair: Mr. Wouters.

Mr. Wayne Wouters (Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Chairman, unless I know the details of the honourable member's position on this, I cannot comment. I would propose that those details be provided to us and we will follow up and give the honourable member a response to that.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister and Mr. Wouters. If you care to receive it, Mr. Cummins can provide you with that information and we'll have a detailed response back.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Mr. Chairman, can the Deputy Minister clear up a few more matters?

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Wayne Wouters: With regard to the treaties in P.E.I., the honourable member has raised the fact that the Mi'kmaq in P.E.I. did not sign a treaty. Clearly the documents that were signed with groups differ from modern-day first nations....

• 1850

We have historical evidence that in fact some of the Mi'kmaq spent part of their time residing in Prince Edward Island during the period in which those agreements were signed. On that basis, of course, are the modern manifestations of those individuals, those first nations, who signed at the time. As a result of that, our legal advice is that those who now reside in P.E.I., the Mi'kmaq, are in fact the modern descendants of those treaties. So while there isn't a specific treaty, there is that historical evidence, as is the case for the Mi'kmaq and Malecite in the Gaspé, who moved to that part of Canada following the signing of these treaties.

So it's by that extension that we have provided those first nations the right to fish under the Marshall decision.

The Chair: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It is Mr. Roy's turn, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Roy.

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

First of all, Mr. Minister, I would like to thank you for being here, but I would also like to thank you for answering part of the question that I asked you last Friday. I will repeat the question now. You say that there has been a 60% budget increase for small craft harbours. What I would like to know today is the department's estimated amount required for the repair and maintenance of small craft harbours.

There is another element. It would seem, in the policy that we have been given, that the department intends to reduce by 50% its ownership in fishing harbours and small craft harbours. What I would like to know, as an example, is the amount required at the present time for the restoration and upkeep of small craft harbours located in the Maritimes, Quebec, the Great Lakes Region, and British Columbia? How much will the department have to invest in order to bring harbours up to operating standards throughout the country?

We were given to understand that an amount of $500 million would be required to restore all of the harbours. I don't mean every harbour, but the 400 that you intend to maintain. An amount of $500 million will be required, and, in certain areas, the department will be required to install fences to the tune of $5,000, $10,000, $15,000, and $20,000 in order to prevent people from having access, because these harbours and wharfs are considered dangerous.

[English]

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Thank you very much for the question, Monsieur Roy.

First of all, you're right that there's a huge demand for harbours all over this country. When program review came about in 1994-95, there was a program to divest the harbours. There's been an ongoing program to let local communities manage the harbours.

That's actually worked very well. When I meet with some of the authorities who now manage many of the harbours we managed, they tell me that's working extremely well. They have some challenges. Major capital expenditures are always difficult for them to finance, and they deal with the operating.

So there is a major program to divest of small-craft harbours during part of program review, to let the community manage, and sometimes there are advantages and synergies for the local community to do it themselves. That's worked out well.

Part of the money I've talked about in this goes toward fixing harbours before their divestiture, because when you turn it over to a municipality or local group, there are always demands in terms of work to be done. Part of the funding goes toward fixing them up.

We have a program, and we spent about $50 million in the past. That's now about $88 million. That's the highest it's been in 10 years. Some of that, of course, is for ongoing management, but we spend that on a priority basis in terms of need. Sometimes you have a situation where you have two harbours within one mile of each other. We need to consolidate those, because there's no use spending money on harbours a mile apart. Sometimes they have only two or three users. So there is also a program to try to consolidate.

There's always a bigger demand than I can fulfil out there, but safety is number one in terms of what we look at, and then the usage of that area. For example, “Do we need this one over that one?” is a decision we sometimes have to make. Some harbours we're not going to be able to repair.

• 1855

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister. We would like Mr. Roy to get in another question.

Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you, Minister, but you only answered part of my question.

What is the estimate, at this time, for the restoration and upkeep of the small craft harbours throughout the country? What is the amount? You mentioned an investment of $88 million. Last year, during the previous fiscal year, it was $50 million. This year, you will be investing $88 million. But what amount will be necessary to restore all of the small craft harbours that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans intends to keep?

[English]

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Are you asking me if there's a cap on investment in each harbour or about what amount we spend? I don't know if there's a cap—

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: No, no. Mr. Minister, what would be the total cost to repair the harbours that you intend to keep if, tomorrow morning, we decided to repair them so that we could keep them?

[English]

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Oh, I see. You're asking about the total cost. I would be guessing, I think, if I gave you the total cost, but if we want to include every one of our harbours out there, I would think it would be hundreds of millions of dollars. Maybe others here would have a better idea of what the total cost would be. I would think it would be huge.

The Chair: Go ahead, Robert.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Bergeron (Director General, Small Craft Harbours, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): If we wanted to restore all of our harbours, it would cost about $400 million over the next five years. That's what it would cost to repair the essential fishing harbours.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Essential.

Mr. Robert Bergeron: That's right.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Next on my list is Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you very much.

Welcome to the committee, Mr. Minister. I have two questions, one to do with aboriginals. The main estimates show an increase of $16 million for a native co-management program. How does this reconcile with your recent announcement of Marshall, phase two? That's my first question.

Second, when we were in Nova Scotia last week, we were told that the Nova Scotia government, along with the federal government, I believe, issued about 35 to 40 licences for oil and gas exploration without environmental review or assessment. Can you comment as to why there were no environmental reviews or assessments? Or are we going to have some in the near future, before they start developing the fields?

Thank you.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, with regard to the Marshall funding, in the last two fiscal years a total of $160 million was spent. That was the Marshall one response. Some of that funding will be shown in the last fiscal year, 1999-2000. The remaining amount, which you talked about, will be shown in 2000-2001.

So the $160 million was divided under two fiscal years. You will see only a part of it in the last fiscal year. The total amount spent was $160 million.

The other question was with regard to...?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: The environmental review for oil and gas licences issued by the Nova Scotia government.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Okay. This is really under the mandate of the Minister of Natural Resources. Of course, DFO will be there. A public review will happen, and an environmental assessment. There will be input from the fisheries department to make sure that fisheries issues are taken into consideration before any final decisions are made on oil and gas.

But I think we're seeing a lot of different uses. There's the laying of cables on our ocean floor. There's oil and gas exploration. There's a lot of very different users, and we have to look at making use of this in an integrated fashion. That's why our strategy for the oceans will be extremely important to look at all the new and different uses of our oceans and how we try to make sure we take into consideration all the different uses and thus reduce conflict.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Lunney.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Can I first just get Wayne to expand on one point?

The Chair: Mr. Wouters.

Mr. Wayne Wouters: As to whether offshore oil and gas will be subject to environmental assessment, I think Minister Anderson announced in January that the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore board would be the designated agency for the purposes of reviewing offshore oil and gas development under CEAA, the Canada Environmental Assessment Act. This means that now any oil and gas development will be subject to an environmental review, a CEAA review, through this board.

• 1900

The Chair: I might point out, Mr. Wouters—and I don't want to pre-empt what the committee may say about the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board—that in our discussions in Halifax last week we didn't hear any witnesses, barring one perhaps, who had much faith in the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board protecting the interests of fishers. I can say this on behalf of all the committee members at that hearing.

I only want to point that out to you now. If any members at the hearing want to differ with me, now's the time to say your point. We haven't prepared a report, but I'll tell you we were not impressed with what we heard in the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Mr. Chairman, may I make a point?

The Chair: Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Mr. Minister, the concern expressed to us then was over the issuing of licences for exploration or to investigate possible exploration. We were asked why there was no environmental assessment before the board issues this licence. Fishers expressed this concern to us.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: I think what you may be talking about is that there may be some preliminary investigative work they could be doing ahead of time.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, sir.

The Chair: Peter—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Well, you asked me to comment on your card, right?

The Chair: Mr. Minister first.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: I think Matthew can better respond to these concerns.

Mr. Matthew W. King (Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Chairman, as the Deputy Minister noted, on January 18 of this year Minister Anderson, through a CEAA amendment, formally designated the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board as a federal authority under CEAA, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This means that from this point forward exploratory activities such as seismic work or exploratory drilling will now officially be subject to a CEAA environmental review.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Is that before they get the lease or after?

The Chair: Is this a point of order, Peter?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: A point of order; this is very, very important.

All the leases they have now were given prior to any environmental assessment. Are you saying they're now going to do environmental assessments before they get the lease or after they get the lease?

Mr. Matthew King: Prior to January 18, environmental assessment was always done at various stages in the granting of a lease.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, correction, sir. They got the lease, and were then asked to do an assessment after the lease. Everyone asked us the following question: do these companies get their leases before any environmental assessment, yes or no? The answer is yes, isn't it?

Mr. Matthew King: The answer will be that any exploratory activity will trigger a federal environmental assessment.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Do they get the lease before—

The Chair: Peter, you're asking a question, but you'll have to delve into this during your time.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Peter, you're taking away from my time.

The Chair: Sarkis, you already ended your time. Order, Sarkis, your time's up.

Mr. Wouters.

Mr. Wayne Wouters: My understanding is that they will get the lease prior to the assessment being done, but there's no....

It's like Alberta. When there's oil and gas development there, the company usually acquires the lease. But before any work is done on the lease, they have to go through an environmental assessment. That's generally the way resource leases are done across the country, and my understanding is that this wouldn't be any different.

But we will follow up and have this clarified. The issue here is the environmental implications of actually doing the work. The paper transaction to get the lease is not the issue for purposes of the impact on the environment.

That the board should now be the body designated to do these assessments does not mean that Fisheries and Oceans would no longer be contributing to them. Our department will provide the expert advice vis-à-vis the fishery. So when the environmental assessment is triggered, all departments who have jurisdiction in this area will be asked for their advice, and our advice will apply to the impact of that development on the fishery. That's the way the system will work.

The Chair: I expect there will be more questions on this. I'd like to get into this myself.

• 1905

Mr. Wouters, let me ask one technical question for the moment. Was the makeup of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board changed when it was given these new duties? Because I would worry it might be putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Mr. Chairman, I'm not aware of any change in membership as a result of this new responsibility, but again we'll check it out. I don't think there has been any change in the makeup of the board.

The Chair: Thank you. We will be calling the Chair of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board before the committee at some point, you can be assured.

Mr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To the minister, I'm picking up on the question raised in the House today. And we're certainly glad to see funds being spent on needed programs for repairing the fleet; $18 million for laboratories; $39 million for the science program; and $41 million to increase enforcement. My concern comes out of the cutbacks, though, particularly those in marine communications and traffic services on the west coast—all coasts where we're dealing with vessel traffic, oil tankers, container ships, hazardous materials, war ships, fishing boats, recreational vehicles, and recently on the west coast, immigrant ships, coming and going.

I see on page 25 in your estimates, with regard to net planned spending in millions, $80 million forecast for 2000-01, going down to $67 million in 2001-02, and then down to $60.3 million. This is what I was getting at in the House. It represents a 25% cut in funding to MCTS programs.

Our concern, of course, comes out of safety—public safety, environmental safety, the risk of hazard on the coast. Let me add that in Seattle during the recent earthquake, the centre was down; we were depending on our own marine communications centres in Tofino. We were monitoring all traffic going in and out of the Juan de Fuca Strait.

Would the minister please explain why we're cutting services in this very central sector?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, I'm very happy to see the Alliance member asking that money be increased to coast guard and fisheries, something I certainly would welcome.

I'm going to ask the deputy to find out why there's a discrepancy. We've had program review; all parts of the department were cut, but on this specific one I'll ask the Commissioner of the Coast Guard, who is here, to respond.

The Chair: Mr. Commissioner.

Mr. John Adams (Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard): You're seeing in the estimates the result of program review activities that reduced the total number of MCTS stations in the country from 43 to 20-something by amalgamating stations—providing identical service but amalgamating stations—and reducing their numbers. Of course this will manifest itself in reduced expenditures in the out years. The results will not decrease service but will lead to less infrastructure, less maintenance associated with facilities, etc.

That's all this is, Mr. Lunney. It's not an indication of any reduction in service, but simply better management.

Mr. James Lunney: But when you're talking about a 20% cut in funding there...and it appears 81 jobs were lost.

Mr. John Adams: There were some job losses, because we combined two different groups of people—two trades, if you will—into one, did the cross training, etc. We were therefore able to reduce personnel, yes.

Mr. James Lunney: With all due respect, the commissioner here is referring to past cuts, but these look to me like future cuts.

Mr. John Adams: These are now future savings as a result of the reduction in the facilities, etc., which take time.... You can't simply reduce them immediately; you have to reduce them over time. These are savings over time as a result of decisions taken some years ago.

The Chair: It's your last question, Mr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: On the same subject, how you can say there won't be a reduction in service when...will personnel be moved out of some of the existing centres?

Mr. John Adams: Yes, they will. But what happens, of course, is that you remote those into other sites and cover them with the improved technology and communications, etc. The mariner does not notice the difference; it's seamless.

• 1910

Mr. James Lunney: Have they been notified of these closures? Will there be any closures of existing sites on the west coast?

Mr. John Adams: Of existing sites now, no. There will be no further closures.

Mr. James Lunney: We have already—

The Chair: Go ahead. You seem to be on a roll.

Mr. James Lunney: Well, the last thing is that there have already been cuts in training for personnel. I raised this in a question to the minister. I have a memo here dating back to November in which all MCTS training for qualified existing staff was cancelled until further notice.

Will training be ongoing for our officers?

Mr. John Adams: You're referring to last-minute cuts made as a result of end-of-year adjustments obviously to let them live within their allocations. This training has been reinstated as a result of the new fiscal year allocations.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lunney.

People's hands keep popping up. Just so you know, I have you listed in this order: Wappel, Stoffer, LeBlanc, Hearn, Matthews, Cummins, O'Brien, Tremblay, and Farrah.

Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, good evening. I have two specific questions and they're completely separate, so I'd like to ask them one at a time.

First, at the bottom of page 12 of the main estimates, there is discussion of the Oceans Act. The final sentence says:

These issues will be taken into consideration as we work towards implementation of the Oceans Act.

When we were on the east coast, we heard witnesses in Halifax. They all asked us why the Oceans Act does not have any regulations. The Oceans Act has now been in force—or at least has been passed—for about three years, if not four.

Could bring us up-to-date on what's happening with the implementation of the Oceans Act and with the regulations under the Oceans Act?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, this committee, as you know, did a review. We put it into the Oceans Act that there be a review of the act to see how we're doing. As you know, the Oceans Act gives me as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the lead role.

Jurisdiction under the Oceans Act is divided among many ministers—the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Transport—but it gives me a lead role. We're now developing a strategy to get all the departments working together to have sustainable oceans. We're doing this right now.

We're working with all the different departments to come back in the fall with a strategy for the implementation of the Oceans Act, looking at regulations, at areas where we can do a better job, working jointly with all these other government departments, because I am only the lead minister. I can do it only if I have the cooperation of other ministers.

Those discussions have been taking place at the deputy ministers' level, and we're continuing to work with them. If we can get everyone cooperating, then we can deliver on a strategy to implement it, to have proper regulations. But we have to do it with all the ministers involved. I cannot do it by myself.

We're working towards this. I hope in the fall we'll have a strategy to implement the Oceans Act.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you.

The Chair: Did Mr. King want to add anything? No?

Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Tom Wappel: My second question moves from the oceans to the inland waters. The Sea Lamprey Control Program, started in 1956, has been successful in supporting the sustainability of the Great Lakes fisheries and the resultant economic benefits accruing to commercial, recreational, and aboriginal users.

Is DFO committed to maintaining the program, Mr. Minister, and if so, could you give us some details on what's happening with the Sea Lamprey Control Program?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, let me add one other comment on the oceans before I get to this, Mr. Wappel. There are two things I've done since becoming minister, and one was to have an advisory committee on the oceans to advise me. I meet with this committee on a regular basis.

We also have two ambassadors for the oceans to help us push the oceans agenda further—nationally as well as internationally—and it's something I'm very focused on. Because if we don't take care of our oceans, we're going to have serious problems in 20 to 25 years.

• 1915

We last year provided $6.1 million towards the sea lamprey program. Unfortunately, it's not part of our A base, so we have to continually try to reallocate within our department. But this is a very important program, we are very much committed to it, and we'll continue to fund it and to see if we can have it moved to our A base, which has been a challenge. I'll have to go to my cabinet colleagues and ask for their support. We've done that in the past, though unfortunately we haven't been successful. But we'll continue to do that, and it's something we'll continue to fund through a reallocation of our other programs.

For additional comments on how the program is working, John Davis maybe can respond.

Dr. John Davis (Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Indeed, as the minister said, the sea lamprey program is an important one. There are some new priorities within the sea lamprey program, sir, to try to address some areas of concern, places like the St. Mary's River area, where there are evident concentrations of lamprey in certain areas. We're also working hard to try to develop new treatment systems, systems that have innovative technologies, cooperating a great deal with our U.S. counterparts.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Davis.

I would remind you, Mr. Minister—and I think you would agree—that the committee in a previous report recommended that there be $8 million put into sea lamprey and that it be in the A base. So maybe Mr. Martin could note that.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister and your colleagues, thanks for coming.

You just said the protection of the oceans is paramount. You also said many times that we operate on a precautionary principle. May I remind your department that you get over $1 billion of our taxpayers' money for the protection of fish and fish habitat. To grant leases out through another arm's length body, as you have through the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, prior to any environmental assessment is morally reprehensible. You simply can't do that. No one is saying oil and gas should go away, but if you're going to coordinate the extra additional activity on our oceans, then please ensure the environmental assessments are done before the lease is granted. Then the seismic work and whatever else can be done using the precautionary principle that you yourself have so eloquently stated on many occasions.

To the gentleman from science, Atlantic Salmon Federation is asking for more funding to find out about the decline of the wild salmon, and I recommend putting more money into that. The Atlantic Veterinary College has also asked for more money for lobster research. They indicate that they get about a third of a million dollars from the department for lobster research, but it's a billion dollar industry. I highly recommend that your department put more money in there.

But my question was, we were in P.E.I.—

The Chair: We were wondering, Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: —in Charlottetown. You talked about money, improving marine safety. Well, marine safety also includes buoys and we noticed a great many buoys on the wharf in Charlottetown, plus a coast guard vessel in dry dock, and very sheepishly the officials down there were going, well, we just don't have the funding for it. You've got fishermen out there without these navigational aids. Then the winter came, and you lost $170,000 worth of buoys to Davy Jones's locker.

Can you explain why you lost $170,000 worth of buoys, which are very important, and why all those buoys are ashore and the coast guard vessel is in dry dock, when they should be out in the water?

That's it—three statements, two questions.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First, I very much agree with you about protecting of the oceans. As I said earlier, it's divided between many ministers, so I don't have the mandate, I have the lead role. That's why the oceans strategy will help us to bring all the other ministers together, so that we can do a better job in assessing that. I'm certainly committed to working towards doing that with the strategy.

As you know, on the Atlantic salmon, I've met with the groups that are very much involved, and I'm very much concerned. We need to do more research in those areas, I agree.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: On the lobster research, we have put new funding into that recently.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: How much?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Somebody can give me the exact amount, but we put new money into doing research. In fact, it's in P.E.I. where they're doing a lot of research. We announced some additional funding there not too long ago. So we're listening to you and already putting funding in there.

• 1920

As for marine safety, as I said earlier, we've made a huge commitment of $115 million to put in new equipment and new resources. Let me say, one of the things that was done prior to my becoming minister was the combination of the fleet of DFO with the fleet of coast guard to have better utilization of those fleets for research and science, to help with fisheries as well as to rescue. We can get greater synergies from those fleets by combining, by using multitasking, by having fleets that are more flexible, so that we can take advantage of those fleets using common maintenance facilities. We're still going through the process of better utilizing existing fleets at DFO, as well as coast guard, to get better service to Canadians out there.

On the buoys, I can get the Commissioner of the Coast Guard to respond to that. Technology is changing out there and we have the GPS system. The marine sector is saying, you guys have to change, you have to modernize. We don't need all the navigational aids we've used in the past, because we know exactly where we are, thanks to the GPS systems. We have to change with modern times, with the technology that's there, and make sure we respond with new types of navigational aids and modernize the way we operate.

Maybe, John, you can add on to that.

The Chair: Mr. Adams.

Mr. John Adams: You are absolutely right, we got caught last fall with an unforecasted, unscheduled downtime with one of our vessels. Obviously, there was ice shifting while that vessel was down, and we couldn't get in to get the buoys out. About a quarter of a million dollars worth of buoys were left in the water. In fact, many of them do survive the winter, and right now it costs us about $105,000, to put a bit of precision on it.

With respect to the buoys that are on the wharf now, there will almost always be buoys on the wharf. We don't have them all in the water all at once. I can't speak to the vessel that's alongside. I must admit, I don't know which one it was, but I can assure you that the buoys that need to be in the water to ensure safe waters for the fishers are in the water to ensure safe waters for the fishers.

The Chair: Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Could I just add something on one other question, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: I've just been told that on lobster research right now we spend $1.5 million and employ 15 researchers. As to how much of it is for P.E.I., the chairman may have a better idea of how much money they spend over there.

The Chair: There is money that comes into the lobster resource centre from the shrimp allocation as well.

Madam Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I simply wanted to check one figure. Mr. Adams has left.

[English]

The Chair: A point of information, then, okay?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Did Mr. Adams say that last year, we had lost $105 million worth of buoys? Oh, that was $105,000. I thought that seemed a little expensive for buoys.

[English]

The Chair: It's a very good point, Madam Tremblay. We don't want to be out that far on our figures.

Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Thank you, Minister, for your presentation.

Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, to follow up on what Mr. Adams said, from when we were in Charlottetown last week at the coast guard station, he said there will always be buoys on the wharf. He's right. But a number of the people we met with there told us they are unusually late, and some with nice painting saying “Miramichi Bay” and so on were on that wharf. We were told that some of them may not go in until July. I worry about Buctouche Bay in my constituency. The buoys look nice on the wharf in Charlottetown. If the commissioner has a chance to look at that, the season in some areas is open. I'm hearing from fishermen that this is a priority.

As with Peter Stoffer, my preamble has nothing to do with the question, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: You're taking away your time.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: That's okay. I have a question for the minister.

I was interested to hear Mr. Bergeron saying that in his view, it would take about $400 million over a period of five years to deal with the rust-out of wharves in small craft harbours. Minister, you have visited some in my constituency and you've seen the condition these wharves are in.

• 1925

You've also invested considerably, and I congratulate you, in improving the safety and dredging some of these harbours, in giving autonomy to wharf authorities, to harbour authorities. In my riding it's been a considerable success, and I wanted to thank you.

But what can this committee do—in keeping with your opening comment—to help you build a case for your colleagues to allocate the money to deal with what in many cases is the last federal presence in some of these coastal communities, the fishing harbour?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, in regard to your opening remarks, we'll look into the buoy situation and make sure we take appropriate action so that navigational aids are out appropriately to help the fishermen.

Secondly, in terms of small-craft harbours, this is an area where there are huge demands to do all the work. I believe if we can work toward getting the community to be involved in managing it, they can do the best job possible, as opposed to us managing them in Ottawa, and we'd encourage communities to take the challenge.

In a lot of ways they have other synergies. Sometimes there's property that's owned by the provincial or municipal government. They could bring it together and create a real business opportunity for someone.

So if there are small-craft harbours in your area that you think we could work to repair, and then the local community could go in to take them on, to manage them, this is something I think would be in the best interests of the community. Because they can certainly manage them better than we can sitting in Ottawa.

The other thing is consolidating. Everybody wants one in their backyard, but we can't afford to have one every mile. As members of Parliament, you have to say, “Look, this is a priority, this is the best location”, and consolidate those that are really crucial, because there's no way we're going to be able to do that.

I remember when I was in the Magdalen Islands to announce some money. The one mayor from that community was very happy, but a mile down the road another mayor was very unhappy, saying, “How come you're giving the money to theirs, and why not to ours?” When I asked him how many people use that other harbour, he said it was only four people. It was going to cost $1 million for four people.

So we have to be realistic. We need to spend the money where we consolidate and make better use of existing facilities, and not have great expectations that we're going to fix every harbour. We're not going to be able to do that.

But let's have common sense about it and let the local people manage these things and deal with them.

The Chair: Mr. Hearn, then Mr. Cummins.

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd also like to thank the minister and his staff for being here. My first question is for the minister, on wharves again.

In response to a question, you mentioned that $88 million was being spent on wharves and harbours, but I think if you check the statement, that includes improvements to sea vessels and aircraft. The actual amount being spent on small-craft harbours is $30 million, not $88 million. It is, I think, on the first page of your statement, spelled out quite clearly. That's not a lot of money.

But the issue I want to mention is the divestiture. I have no problems with closing down some of the harbours that are no longer being used—and I mean no longer being used, period. But what is happening, because of the change in the fishery—people are moving either to bigger boats in some cases, or smaller boats in other cases—is that different requirements take place at different times, and needs shift, perhaps, from one area to another.

Another major problem is that in some communities the only fishing structure is one put there by a combination of funding, perhaps materials from small-craft harbours—your department—labour from HRDC, and a small grant from a provincial government. In some cases, not many, but in fact in a number of cases in my area, the only facilities fishermen can use are these structures. Since we are now identifying what we call designated harbours, we're being told by your department that money can be spent only on wharves that you own completely. They hedge from spending any money on these facilities.

• 1930

HRDC, on the other hand, won't provide labour money to help either, because they won't put any money in unless DFO designates it as a usable structure. So it's a catch-22. There are not too many, but there are some in the area where these are the only facilities the fishermen use. And I'd be only too glad to talk to some of your people about that.

If the rule is hard and fast that money will be spent only in our designated harbours on our designated, solely owned wharves, then there are going to be some areas where the fishermen have no facility whatsoever.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Well, first of all, Mr. Hearn, I have before me the national budget for small-craft harbours. There are, of course, calls for technical support, programs, property, and operations, but in terms of maintenance, 62% of the $88 million budget goes toward maintenance. That is $54.8 million. This is from our budgetary material. If there's some discrepancy, I'm certainly willing to look at it.

Out of that $54.8 million, $27.5 million is major capital, $2.2 million is minor capital, and $24 million is for operating and maintenance. It is divided among operating and maintenance, major capital, and minor capital. But the total of that is $54 million out of the $88 million that I brought forward. If there's some more clarity we can bring to this, we'd be happy to do so.

In terms of your second question, I think you're correct in saying we put money only into active fishing harbours that we own. I believe you're correct in that policy we have. We are spending also on recreational harbours where there's a divestiture program and other inactive ones where there's a divestiture program. There are three areas we're spending money on.

In terms of those we don't own, there are other government programs, which we don't fund, like infrastructure.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: But they won't kick in unless you do first. That's the problem.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Well, I don't know if infrastructure has that qualification. I'm not sure. I would have thought if it's a priority, they might be able to fund it through infrastructure. But we'll certainly look at the representations you've made in terms of those we do not own as the federal government and don't fund at this time. I think you're absolutely correct in what you're saying.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins.

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

I would like to clear up a couple of items, Mr. Chairman, before I go on.

Mr. Wouters mentioned historical documentation that natives from elsewhere had harvested lobster on P.E.I. I wonder if he would provide the committee with that as well as advise the committee which treaty would cover P.E.I. Would that be possible, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Well, certainly there's a request before me at this time, Mr. Chairman, on legal advice. There was a request made. As I've said here, I've now written to my colleagues, because I'm required to consult with them before I'm allowed to release that legal advice. I think Mr. Cummins is once again referring to legal advice, if I understand his question correctly, and we are reviewing that.

Mr. John Cummins: No, what I'm asking—

The Chair: If I could, Mr. Minister, I think Mr. Wouters earlier indicated that the broad Mi'kmaq treaty, although it might not have been on P.E.I., covered the Mi'kmaq on P.E.I. I believe that's what it was.

Is that correct?

Mr. John Cummins: I'd like to know which one that was. As well, he mentioned there was some historical documentation that showed that natives from elsewhere fished on P.E.I., and I'd like that documentation.

The reason I ask for this is that the member for South Shore, as you will recall, Mr. Chairman, suggested that if I wanted to know about natives and harvesting lobster, I should check the records of the early French explorers. Although I didn't do it personally, one of the major experts—in fact the government's used the man in court—has advised me that there were no writings of early French explorers in Nova Scotia that would suggest they were catching and selling lobster to the French. So I would like this documentation that Mr. Wouters is referring to.

• 1935

The Chair: Mr. Wouters, do you want to add anything?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Again, Mr. Chairman—

Mr. John Cummins: That is a request for information, a yes or a no. I don't want to waste my time.

Mr. Wayne Wouters: —the information we gather is part of undertaking a legal advice and legal opinion on this file. That's the purpose of undertaking that historical work. So in my view, this is very much tied into the whole question of legal advice that we're providing to the committee.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, I don't know how historical documentation can be privileged documentation, but I've never been able to understand the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and its reasoning and rationale. I don't expect I ever will.

The minister provided us with a copy of the 10 treaties, which he obtained from the Library of Parliament, the same way I did, that cover the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, and Passamaquoddy.

Just as an example, the first one is a renewal of the 1725 articles and 1749 articles with the delegates of the Saint John and Passamaquoddy tribes. It was signed on February 23, 1760.

I don't perhaps expect it to be provided now, but given the minister's comment that these agreements they're reaching with natives today are based on the treaties, I would like to know what area is covered by that particular treaty, Treaty 1, and how much money the government intends to spend, based on Treaty 1 of the treaties that the minister provided me with today, the first one on the Saint John and Passamaquoddy tribes.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, as I said, we're responding with these agreements as a result of the Marshall decision from the Supreme Court. So we'll take Mr. Cummins' request into consideration, but our response is part of the Supreme Court decision, which clearly has said there is a treaty right and which clearly says we have to look this into the modern context as well.

We believe as a government, and I believe as Minister of Fisheries, we need to sit down and dialogue and get agreements. We have a two-track process to deal with that, and that's the strategy I've laid out here and to the public, and to ministers of fisheries in the Maritimes and the Atlantic provinces. We think that's the right strategy.

I don't agree with Mr. Cummins' view of it. I think we could be here for days and I still wouldn't agree with his view, which is to look at it in the narrowest possible way. I think Canadians wouldn't agree with his view of it.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins, this is your last question.

Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Minister, the treaty right is based on a specific treaty. I'm simply asking you to provide us with the coverage of that particular treaty. Who did it cover, and how money are you spending based on that treaty?

That has nothing to do with interpretation. It's a simple question, a simple request, based on the notion that you yourself have said and what your man in Moncton, the director of aboriginal fisheries, said, that the moneys being spent were based on signed treaties.

So I'm saying, here's a signed treaty; what expenditures are you basing on that treaty, and who's covered by it? It is a simple question.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: The courts identified the Mi'kmaq, the Maliseet, and the Passamaquoddy as having treaties. The first nations with which we are signing agreements are, in our view, the successor groups of the original signatories of that group and are benefactors of those treaties. I don't know why that's so difficult for Mr. Cummins to understand.

The Chair: Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, perhaps you would ask the researcher to obtain a copy of the Marshall decision from the Supreme Court. I think Mr. Cummins would find the answers to his question in that decision.

Mr. John Cummins: I've read that.

There are two decisions, by the way. You should ask for the two, if you want them—one on September 17 and the other on November 17. So be specific if you want accurate answers. You should learn that.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins, you're out of time.

Mr. Matthews.

• 1940

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome the minister and his officials.

With my personality I'd almost give up my time for Mr. Cummins and Mr. LeBlanc to keep going, but I have some questions that I want to ask the minister.

Minister, first of all, I want to echo the sentiments and comments of many of my colleagues at the table pertaining to harbours and many deplorable conditions that fishermen are expected to fish out of.

I represent an area of Newfoundland and Labrador where we fish lobster, crab, cod, and other species. As we speak, many of those harbours and wharves have barricades and signs on them saying “Use at your own risk,” advising pedestrians to stay off the wharf. These facilities are owned and controlled by small-craft harbours. In some cases, harbour authorities have already been established. So I want to go on record as supporting my colleagues who have spoken on the need for more money for improvements to harbours.

We expect those fishermen to be productive. They need a safe harbour to leave to go to the fishing grounds, and they need a good facility to come back and land their catch. I can't say it loud enough.

If we had a three- or four-year program of $100 million or $150 million a year, we could obviously address the needs as outlined by some of your officials who have said the amount we would need to do this. As a member of Parliament, I wouldn't have to be tormenting your officials on pretty much a weekly basis trying to get some improvements to wharves so that people who want to make a living—and would make a decent living, by the way—in a billion dollar industry in Newfoundland would have somewhere to fish out of.

So I want to go on record and ask you, as minister: Do you think there's some possibility that you can influence your colleagues to come up with a three-or four-year program so that we have adequate funding to improve our harbours for fishermen?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Certainly this committee's representations are extremely important. Your representation to me is one I certainly will want to make to my colleague, the finance minister, and other colleagues.

I would ask other members here, as well, to make representation to my colleagues. Certainly if they'll be supportive, I would be happy to be able to fill the demands of all of the MPs around the table and in the House that continually ask for support in those areas. If I had more resourcing, I would welcome more resources. If you can support me in that, I'd appreciate it. I'm certainly willing to go to my colleagues to get additional resources to help in the small-craft harbours.

Mr. Bill Matthews: We could absolutely do that.

Minister—

The Chair: Make it very short, Bill, if you can.

Mr. Bill Matthews: —I have two short questions. When can we expect you to announce your shrimp management plan for Newfoundland and Labrador this year?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: I hope to announce that within a week or two. We'll have a final review of it. Certainly there's always a huge demand.

One thing we have to keep in mind is that there has been huge growth in the harvesting of this resource, from 37,000 to 112,000 metric tonnes, a 300% increase in a matter of five years. Our priority should be conserving and protecting the resource. That should be our number one responsibility.

As a minister, there are always huge pressures, because communities want to harvest more; the harvesters want to get more. But my responsibility is to protect that resource and make sure it's there for many years to come and future generations. I'll be making sure the decision I make has conservation as the top priority.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Minister, you've received a report—I may have the zone wrong—on Greenland halibut allocation distribution. I think it's 4RST. I think you've had that report since sometime in February, and I think an independent group looked at this. Are you going to implement the recommendations of the report, and when can we expect it to happen?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, there is a report by Judge La Forest. He and two other panel members, a total of three panel members, have submitted their report—there is a majority report and a minority report—on how the turbot should be allocated. As many of you know, this has been an ongoing issue for many years between the Quebec and the Newfoundland fleets.

I will be making sure I look at the report very closely, and at the recommendations, and make a decision on that. It won't be an easy decision, but I want to make sure that everything was taken into consideration and that I personally have read the report and am totally comfortable with the decision.

• 1945

I'll be making that announcement in a week's time. That will be a decision made in the weeks ahead, and I appreciate your representation on that.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We are starting to run down on time. I would ask those who are in their second round to cut it back a little to three minutes. The rest can have five.

Madame Tremblay, you have five minutes.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister, I am delighted to have the opportunity to remind you of one of the things that might help you in making your final decision on quotas. It relates to the habit of keeping track of historical quotas; there is a lack of ingenuity in trying to ensure that people will be given the quotas that they feel are their due.

I just have one wish: I would like you to wait until we return—you said it would take about seven days—and not take advantage of next week's break to announce any policies, as is often the habit of governments and ministers. If you could wait another few days, until we are all back here, we would appreciate it.

I would like to come back to something that is of great interest to me. You know that we toured the Maritimes. We heard a number of things; I will not deal with all of the points that were raised. However, notwithstanding your great efforts to help the aquaculture industry, there is still one thing that people are not happy about. They say that it takes too long to introduce a bill that would help in the development of this industry. When I hear officials tells us that it will take ten years, I feel that we should really be fast-tracking this, because ten years is rather too long.

I would also like more information on the services or the navigational aids that you provide. There is a moratorium that will be lifted in October 2001. It would seem that... Today is National Marine Day, which is quite appropriate because we heard the lobbyists from that sector of the industry. It would seem that the industry has been trying to meet with you for some time, to discuss the costs for navigational aids.

Could you please tell me if you intend to meet with the industry representatives before making any decisions in that area?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Minister, if you can keep your remarks fairly tight as well, it would be helpful.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: I'll try, Mr. Chairman.

On the first question, Madame Tremblay, of course allocation is always a very difficult decision. We have all sorts of principles—historical, adjacency, equity—all of which are taken into consideration when we make those decisions. But certainly it's one of the most difficult decisions to make.

As for aquaculture, I think we've made huge progress in the last two years. We have now within DFO the sustainable aquaculture office, we have the commission for aquaculture, we have $75 million introduced now to work with the industry on research and development. So we've come a long way in the last two years in aquaculture. It continues to be a priority for me, and I want to make sure we continue to do that.

On the marine fees, I met with the industry today, in fact, and it made representation. As you know, as part of the program review, marine fees were put into place, and as a result of the industry representation, there was a freeze put on for three years. At the end of this year that freeze is completed, and we will be reviewing it once again. We have an advisory committee working with the industry to look at what things we can do, and they've made representation to me on marine fee issues. So I'll be looking at it.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: We were told, Mr. Minister, that apparently, according to Treasury Board policies, it has been clearly established that the amounts that you charge must be revenue neutral for the departments. On page 19(5) of your estimates, we see that you estimate revenue of $32,477,000, no doubt.

[English]

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Those are the general revenues.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It says "Expected revenue out of vote". You have forecast expenditures of $130 million and revenue of $32 million, but how can you expect any revenue while following the Treasury Board policy?

• 1950

[English]

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First, my understanding is that all fees go into general revenue. We show in our books what has been collected, but the actual funds go into general revenue. We don't get it, but we show in the books how much of it comes from fees. So we're following Treasury Board guidelines in that regard. We don't get them directly into it, but we have to show what is collected, though it actually goes into general revenue. Then we ask for a budget from Treasury Board for our figures in respect of our budgetary requirements. I think we follow the same method as applies to every other fee, whether it's agriculture or any other area. They are going direct to consolidated revenue budget, as required under the Financial Administration Act.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, if I may, if we look at the figures, we see that operations will cost $130 million and capital expenditures will be $683,000. That totals $98 million because $32 million will be in revenue. It is very clear, according to the figures, that they intend to balance the requirements budget of about $130 million, with the $32 million in revenue. That is what I do not understand. How do you get a total of $98 million?

[English]

The Chair: Madame Tremblay, what page is that in the French text?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It's on page 19(5), in the big book.

[English]

The Chair: In the French text, Liseanne.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: In the French one,

[Translation]

in parts I and II.

[English]

The Chair: Maybe somebody can look that up.

Okay, go ahead, Mr. Smith.

Mr. Andrew W. Smith (Senior Finance Manager, Financial Management Advisory Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has two main revenue sources. One is what is referred to as CRF revenue, consolidated revenue fund revenue. Things like fishing licensing fees go into that. We do not have an authority to respend those dollars.

The other types of revenue we have are referred to as vote net revenue, or directly in the documents as respendable revenue. These are service charges that we may charge, the marine service fee, for example. So the spending authority of the department, in other words, the total budget it could spend, includes its appropriation from Parliament and an authority to respend a certain amount of revenue. That gives us the total spending authority that you will find in the main estimates.

The Chair: Thank you.

Maybe we can have this discussion on the side. We're going to run out of time here.

Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, there are always so many points, of course, and most of them have been addressed, but there are certainly quite a few that haven't been this evening. The issue of small crafts and harbours is very important to all of us, one of equal importance to me. As to vessel replacement, I heard very little discussion about that key issue, one that I believe is being addressed. That has be related to IQ and so on.

With the question of science, Mr. Minister, in northern waters we have a great pressure, as Madame Tremblay said. Everybody claims historical attachment to the northern shrimp. I claim, of course, adjacency, but nobody is helping me along on the science of that particular fishery. I would plead to you and the department to put more science into the northern waters, because people are going in in great numbers without it. We have a major concern. Relay that to your ADM of science as well.

The other point is, of course, that with those great crab fisheries and shrimp fisheries, we have a gear conflict. Nothing has been put in place by DFO for looking after the crab fishers. I'm paying a heavy price in northern Labrador and along the Labrador coast, because all of our southern friends are coming up and catching shrimp. It's mobile gear. I have fixed-gear crab fishers. My crab are being destroyed, my fish are being destroyed, and nobody gives two hoots.

I wanted to ask about shrimp allocations as well, but Mr. Matthews mentioned that. So the final point I make is one that's very important to our province as well and catches a lot of attention, but we've got a couple of people gone. John Efford, when he was here, always played on this one, seals, as did George Baker, and I guess I'm the last one left on this one.

• 1955

Minister, I have a couple of points I'd like to ask. Where is the cull? How many harp seals and hooded seals are out in the north Atlantic? Things are going very well this year in terms of market. I believe we're going to probably catch the quota if not very close to it. Are you subject to an increase based on the numbers, on the way the market is going?

The Chair: Mr. Minister, there are a number of questions there.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, as Mr. O'Brien knows, vessel replacement is something we're studying right now. We do want to make sure people have an opportunity to replace them, as long as we don't expand the capacity. Right now it's being studied how we can accomplish this. It's something very important and it's been raised quite often with me.

On the science in the north, I agree we need to do more. Part of the problem is when you make decisions, if you don't have the full science, it's always difficult. In the north, we haven't had as much science, because some of these are new fisheries. The shrimp fishery really has exploded in the last five years. We need to look at that and make sure we have all the information available to make good decisions. If we don't have good science, we can't make good decisions. So it's very important, and the north is an area we need to look at in terms of having more resources.

In terms of the effect of the shrimp fishery on crab, there's a study going on right now. There have been some concerns that the shrimp fishery is hurting the crab when they troll, and that's a problem. There is a program right now going on to study the effects of that.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: But it's the wait, Minister, that's the question.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: We will be looking at that to see what we'll do.

In terms of the seals, as you know I appointed a panel of international experts to look at the whole seal issue. I know the market has improved in terms of seal opportunities. We've never had the full quota utilized in the past because there wasn't a market there.

Of course, if the market develops and there's more opportunity, we'll look at that factor and we'll see. I think we'll have to see what happens this year with the market, and we'll have to see what the international experts panel provides for us. We'll look at their advice that comes forward.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Do you have the numbers of seals out there right now?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: There was a survey done recently that gives us the numbers. I think the numbers were lower than a lot of people were predicting. It wasn't seen to be as big a problem. But certainly it's an issue that's out there all the time.

The Chair: I think there is a preliminary report of that expert panel available, which I believe the committee received.

I have on my list...just to make sure I haven't missed anyone. We will go a little overtime, if that's all right with the minister. He was a little late.

Are you available until ten after?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Mr. Chairman, I'm a member of the energy committee of cabinet, and I believe that starts at eight.

The Chair: Okay. We'll try to wrap up by ten after seven, if we can.

I have Lunney, Farrah, Stoffer, Hearn, and Wappel.

Mr. Lunney, let's go.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll try to make this brief.

As a final request, regarding MCTS is it possible for the minister to advise the committee exactly where and when services will be reassigned to achieve the funding goals as far as our MCTS centres are concerned?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: What we can do, Mr. Lunney, is provide you more detail on the questions in written form, if you like, so we can give you a much more comprehensive answer on this. We'll be happy to provide that.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you. Second, of the $115 million listed here for search and rescue, does any of that include money for the Sea Island hovercraft dive team that we were discussing earlier regarding search and rescue capability?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: What I have announced is that Mr. Peter Bernard, who is well known in the marine sector, is doing a review on this whole issue of the dive team. Originally, we had set up a 60-day period for him to report back. He has requested an additional 30 days, because he felt there is more information he needs to look at before he makes the final report. I'll look forward to his report on this area, and once I have it we'll make a decision as to what we can do on the dive team.

• 2000

The Chair: Mr. Farrah.

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

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to all of you. To come back to what was said about the small harbours, the fishing harbours, obviously, I would like to add that the department strongly suggested that the communities set up a port authority.

We have been told that the department, in the past, to encourage the communities to set up these port authorities, had told them that in doing so, the work would be made easier and the department would offer support. We now realize that the promises made by the department, over the years, have not been kept. People have felt somewhat abandoned, considering what the department had told them that they would have some support if they took things in hand.

I believe that some of your officials are aware of this. I think there is a willingness to make up for lost time. However, I want to make you aware of the fact that the port authorities do not feel that they have any support, contrary to what the department had told them before the port authorities were set up.

Secondly, I would like you to tell me about the situation affecting the crab fishery in zone 12. You know that the decisions you made, following the Marshall ruling, to open the crab fishery to native peoples, met with vigorous protests this year in zone 12.

First of all, the crab fishers in zone 12 told us that last year, in order to have access to the fishery, they had to lend quotas to the department which in turn were given to the Aboriginal people. There was no agreement at that time as to the price for lending the quotas. This year, according to what I have been told, the compensation for these quotas is set at a ridiculous amount, that is, around 40¢ or 50¢ a pound. Last year, those people would have sold the crab for $1.50, $2.00 or $2.25 per pound. So that does give rise to a conflict.

The other aspect of the problem of which we are aware, is that, since there aren't enough permits being sold by the department, the quotas are being expropriated, because there was no agreement on the sale, and they are being allocated to the native people. That also unleashed a storm of protest.

I would like to know how the negotiations are progressing. We have been told that the department broke the agreement with the crab fishers. You say that the crab fishers are responsible for breaking the agreement. Therefore, we know that there is a problem at this time. I would like an update on the situation.

Third point,—

[English]

The Chair: Perhaps you would give the minister a chance to respond to those three first, Mr. Farrah, and then come back to your last question.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Let me comment, first of all, on the port authority groups. I have met with a group that represents the port authority groups, and their view is that generally things have worked well. Where there is a problem is when they have large capital expenditures. That's where they feel there's a problem. They don't have access to and are not able to always get those moneys for the large capital expenditures. They feel they can deal with the operating, but not with those.

The other thing was the insurance for liability, which they felt was a problem. If we, as a government, could continue to carry the insurance for liability, which for individual port authorities would be quite expensive, they would ask us to continue. We still do it, but there's a time when it will expire, and I've agreed to look at that factor.

In terms of the zone 12 crab, this is a fairly complicated situation in terms of the agreement, so I don't think I can give you a detailed response on that. Maybe Dave Bevan could give you a better response than I can, because it's complex and detailed.

Dave.

Dr. David Bevan (Director General, Resource Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): As you're aware, there was a loan last year of the 1,060 tonnes needed for first nations access. Of that, there's an outstanding commitment of some tonnes to be returned, or in some other way to compensate the crabbers. We're currently in negotiations on those arrangements, and I have to confess that I haven't been updated as to results over the weekend. But I understand there were meetings and there have been discussions to try to resolve that issue.

• 2005

We are also buying licences to take care of long-term commitments to first nations in terms of their access to the crab fishery. Those activities did not, as of the start of the fishery, provide enough access to meet our commitments. Based on last year's loan, we couldn't just buy that amount of access this year. Therefore we were short some tonnes and did commit to the first nations to provide that. Therefore we had to inform the crabbers that we would reduce their quotas to the level needed and compensate them appropriate amounts to offset the lower quota.

So those discussions are still under way. People are fishing, obviously, and at the same time we have a number of other activities under way in the crab fishery. We have court challenges to solidarity funds and other issues that are on the table as well.

With respect to those things that impact on DFO and the crabbers, that relationship, we are discussing the compensation for the crab loan to us last year, and we are looking at ways in the future to avoid the need to reduce quotas, as we had to do this year. We're looking at reducing quotas this year with compensation and buying the licences we need in the longer term.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bevan.

A last quick question, Mr. Farrah.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the same subject, with respect to native people, our problem arises out of the target that has been set by the department for the quantities that must be transferred to the Aboriginal people in order to respect the court's decision.

I will explain: the producers in my riding, the plant owners, tell me that, for example, in the Magdalen Islands, there were seven crabbers. Since one of them sold his operation, close to 15% of the production will be leaving the islands because of the Marshall decision.

What I am hearing in my area, is that we are wondering how we can plan according to the production of this species? When and where will it end? Will the department buy two more permits next year, and three more the year after that? Will there eventually be no more crab permits for the Magdalen Islands? Will there be any left in the Gaspé?

Therefore, we would like to know,—and I don't know if it is possible—, what the department's objectives are and what levels it wants to reach. It will have to stop somewhere. We understand that you have—

The Chair: Five minutes, Mr. Farrah.

Mr. Georges Farrah: ...we understand that, legally, you must act. However, we would like to know where we are headed.

[English]

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: I think that's a very good question that you ask. We're now trying to get three-year agreements with them so we get stability in the industry. They know what it is, they know what the access is going to be, and it creates stability out there.

The courts are not precise and clear, and this is where the negotiation part comes in. The courts have not given us a clear map, saying here's the direction. They've given some guidelines and said you guys go and negotiate. Part of it is through negotiation. What the courts did say is that they should be able to earn a moderate livelihood. Now, that can be defined by ten people in ten different ways.

It's a question of negotiating what the courts have said with the first nations. You know, there's a longer-term process going on under the Minister of Indian Affairs, by the Tom Moloy process, which is aboriginal and treaty rights. Yes, the government has to make sure they fully comply with the Supreme Court and they can justify, if the matter goes before the courts, that they have complied with the Marshall ruling, that they have complied with the requirements of their ability to earn a moderate livelihood. This is something we are negotiating. In the end, if we can't agree on it, of course, it has to go back to the courts, but our view is we'd like to avoid that. We'd like to have this done through negotiation, because it's in everybody's interest.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

One quick question, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Very quickly, in the Nova Scotia harbours, more money to divest to them so the province can ease over control of them.... Lighthouses need more money for environmental protection so the community groups can take over. Right now they don't have access because the environmental mercury vats are there. They need more funding in order to restore those—

The Chair: Is there a question in this?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: My question is that this may be the last opportunity we have the minister before us, as rumour has it that he may be leaving in the next cabinet shuffle.

• 2010

The Chair: Is there a question there, Peter? Never mind the rumours. Question, or we'll move on.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's coming.

You're going to the energy caucus now, and you have the opportunity of a lifetime to tell the energy caucus that you'll be the minister very soon to sign off and make The Gully a marine protected area. Will you have the opportunity to do that? Yes. Will you do it? That's the question.

The Chair: Mr. Minister, before you leave.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: I can't predict what's going to happen in terms of what the Prime Minister is thinking of doing six months, a year, or two years from now. I certainly can say I've enjoyed working with all of you, and I hope I can continue to enjoy working with you.

In terms of The Gully, it's a priority, and I'm going to make sure we do everything possible to make that happen.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: I'll make it very short, Mr. Chairman.

Most of our resources are used for the benefit of our people—the processors, the people who work in our plants, etc.—except the shrimp resource. Most of that is caught and taken afield with very little work in the adjacent communities.

I suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that if you have all these people coming to you for quotas and an increase in stock, we should get some value from the resource we're giving away. We're not getting it. I think there should be something in your requirement that these people have to start providing employment in the adjacent communities—communities being all of us. We're not getting that at all in the shrimp fishery.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Well, let me say that the lion's share of new shrimp allocation recently has been to inshore and adjacent fishermen. They've received the lion's share of the new quotas. So that's something that's been done already.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hearn.

Last question to Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you very much.

Minister, on page 5 is an organizational chart. I just wanted to know if the Commissioner of Aquaculture is on that organizational chart. If he is, which one is he? And if he isn't, could you work us down to wherever he is?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, the Commissioner of Aquaculture is not on this chart for a very good reason, and that is that the commissioner reports directly to me, as Minister of Fisheries.

If some of your remember, when the task force on aquaculture came forward with their recommendations, they specifically recommended to the Prime Minister that the Commissioner of Aquaculture not be within the department, but separate so they can directly report to the minister. That's what the reporting line is. That's why he won't be in this. What will be in here is the new Office of Sustainable Aquaculture, which is within the department, which is a new office we've set up. That why it's not here.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

I have one related question, on page 7 of the estimates in the English, under fisheries management, part III.

The total there for fisheries management in this estimate is $251 million. Last year, in 1999-2000, it was $508.1 million. Can you explain that?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: The difference is the CFAR funding that the government provided as the fisheries restructuring money. That's the difference. We no longer have that funding.

The Chair: Okay.

To close, there are just a few things. On the coast guard, specifically, I think we had an indication from the Commissioner of the Coast Guard—I see he's just left—that he would look into the buoys that are on Charlottetown wharf. We were told they wouldn't go in until July—

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: We'll look at that.

The Chair: —and the fishing season is over in July.

Secondly, we would just remind you to look into the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. I think that was agreed to in that discussion.

Thirdly, there was more information on MCTS to come forward.

And lastly, there was the request by Mr. Cummins, I think, to determine whether it's in the current legal request—that information as well.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, there are a couple of issues, actually. There are the funding arrangements that were signed at the end of March 2000, and you've committed to providing some explanation for whether those funds were adequately monitored. Then I think the minister committed, on Treaty 1, to give us the information requested about who the money was spent on and how much.

• 2015

The Chair: I don't know if that commitment was made in Treaty 1. I don't believe it was, John. Anyway, we'll look at the blues and see what it said on that one.

I think Suzanne wanted further information from Andrew Smith.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: In view of the Treasury Board policy, Mr. Chairman, the answer given by the acting director is not at all convincing. Therefore, I would really like someone to explain to me how you can forecast a need for $130 million plus $683,000 and end up with a budget of $98 million, if you don't take into account the $32 million you are expecting to receive in revenue. However, the Treasury Board policy clearly states that you cannot do that.

I would like more information on this subject, because the administration must be more transparent. What comes in, how much it costs, and what benefits are generated, what goes in and what comes out, is extremely important.

[English]

The Chair: Is Mr. Smith still here? Can you roll that by us one more time, Mr. Smith?

Mr. Andrew Smith: Yes, I'll try one more time.

The Chair: I'd rather clear it up now, even if it takes us a couple of minutes more.

Mr. Andrew Smith: That's fine.

First of all, the Treasury Board policy on cost recovery does provide for departments to have authority to respend revenue. So when you're looking at the main estimates of the department, and you're looking at the authority of the department to spend money, there are actually two parts you're looking at: the authority of the department to get direct appropriations from Parliament, and its authority to respend funds. Both together give us our spending authority.

When you're looking at what we call the part III, or the report on plans and priorities, or the Appropriation Act, the actual presentation can sometimes be a little confusing, because what it shows you is the total gross authority of the department, which in the case of 2001-02 is $1.356 billion. Against that, it shows “less respendable revenue of $45.8 million”. That gives us an authority, in the main estimates—that's basically what you vote us—as appropriations of $1.31 billion.

Madam Tremblay's question was how can you put revenue into the plan—how can you tell that you're going to be getting revenues in? We do have a revenue plan that we submit to the Treasury Board Secretariat as part of our annual reference-level update. It shows the Treasury Board—and subsequently parliamentarians, because it's presented in the main estimates—what our revenue plan is, both for revenue we can respend, as well as revenue that we can't respend, revenue that goes directly into the CRF. That basically is the authority we have.

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Can I add to that?

If the revenues fall short of our plan, then we have to find that funding elsewhere in the department. So it's a forecast. If the funds we can use come below the forecast amount, then we have to find the funds within the department.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wouters.

We are overtime, Peter.

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Just quickly, Mr. Chairman, on the issue of treaties, I know this has come up vis-à-vis Treaty 1 and what funding has been allocated to Treaty 1. Just for a point of clarification, as the minister has indicated, the modern first nations, in our view, are the most likely successor to those treaties, but there is not, in our view, a one-to-one application of treaties to each individual first nation. Essentially, the passage of time has resulted in the change and composition of some of those first nation communities. So we do not look at the treaties on a one-to-one basis when determining the rights under Marshall for those Mi'kmaq and Maliseet in Atlantic Canada.

The Chair: Thank you.

On behalf of the committee, Mr. Minister, I would like to thank you and all the people from the department for coming. I think we had a very detailed discussion. Thank you once again.

We will vote on estimates on May 29 as a committee, so keep that in mind.

The meeting is adjourned.