FOPO Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, April 1, 2003

1105

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

The Clerk of the Committee

The Chair

1110

Mr. James Wheelhouse (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

1115

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

1120

1125

1130

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. Alex Lakroni (Director, Financial Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

The Chair

Mr. Alex Lakroni

The Chair

Mr. Alex Lakroni

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

1135

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

1140

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. James Wheelhouse

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

1145

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

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

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

1150

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

1155

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

The Chair

Mr. Alex Lakroni

The Chair

Mr. Alex Lakroni

The Chair

Mr. Alex Lakroni

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. R. John Efford (Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, Lib.)

1200

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. R. John Efford

The Chair

Mr. R. John Efford

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

Mr. R. John Efford

Mr. James Wheelhouse

Mr. R. John Efford

Mr. James Wheelhouse

Mr. R. John Efford

1205

Mr. James Wheelhouse

Mr. R. John Efford

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. Alex Lakroni

The Chair

Mr. Alex Lakroni

The Chair

Mr. Alex Lakroni

The Chair

Mr. Alex Lakroni

The Chair

Mr. R. John Efford

Mr. Alex Lakroni

The Chair

1210

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. Alex Lakroni

The Chair

Mr. Alex Lakroni

The Chair

Mr. Alex Lakroni

The Chair

Mr. R. John Efford

The Chair

Mr. R. John Efford

The Chair

Mr. R. John Efford

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

1215

Mr. R. John Efford

Mr. James Wheelhouse

Mr. R. John Efford

Mr. James Wheelhouse

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

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

Mr. R. John Efford

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. R. John Efford

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC)

1220

Mr. James Wheelhouse

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. James Wheelhouse

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. James Wheelhouse

Mr. Loyola Hearn

1225

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. Georges Farrah

1230

The Chair

Mr. Georges Farrah

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

Mr. Georges Farrah

1235

Mr. Georges Farrah

The Chair

Mr. Alex Lakroni

Mr. Georges Farrah

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. James Wheelhouse

Mr. Alex Lakroni

The Chair

Mr. Alex Lakroni

The Chair

Mr. Alex Lakroni

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

1240

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. James Wheelhouse

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. James Wheelhouse

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. James Wheelhouse

1245

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

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

Mr. James Wheelhouse

Mr. Bill Matthews

Mr. James Wheelhouse

Mr. Bill Matthews

Mr. James Wheelhouse

Mr. Bill Matthews

Mr. James Wheelhouse

Mr. Alex Lakroni

Mr. Bill Matthews

1250

Mr. Alex Lakroni

Mr. Bill Matthews

The Chair

Mr. Bill Matthews

Mr. James Wheelhouse

Mr. Bill Matthews

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. Bill Matthews

The Chair

Mr. Bill Matthews

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

1255

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. James Wheelhouse

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

1300

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

NUMBER 026

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 1, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1105)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting to order.

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

I'm actually a little surprised there aren't more members here, so for now I just want to let the witnesses know a couple of things.

First of all, as soon as I see nine members, we have to vote on something. It won't be in camera or anything, but I'll have to adjourn the proceedings--you can stay where you are--and ask for two votes. As soon as those votes are completed, we'll get back into the evidence. So that's the first thing.

Second, for the benefit of those who are here, I'll ask our clerk to give us a little bit of a briefing on various things that I think we should be aware of in terms of the estimates.

Please go ahead, Jeremy.

The Clerk of the Committee: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Members will have in front of them a number of different documents to assist them during consideration of the estimates. As Mr. Wappel said at the beginning of the meeting, the estimates were referred to us by the House, pursuant to the standing orders.

I have photocopied from the main estimates the pages that are relevant to Fisheries and Oceans. You all have a photocopy of those pages in front of you. The page begins, “General Summary: Section Department or agency”, and I've highlighted the areas that are pertinent to Fisheries and Oceans.

The committee is considering three budgetary items, votes 1, 5, and 10. Vote 1 is the operating expenditures of the department; vote 5, the capital expenditures; and vote 10, the grants and contributions. These provide high-level data, or aggregate data, if you want, on the amounts to be voted under those headings. So that's what you'll find in the photocopy.

Members of the committee also have the report on plans and priorities of the department, which is a substantially smaller document, but specific to Fisheries and Oceans, which provides much more detailed information on how the money is going to be spent within those three headings.

It's organized a bit differently. In the report on plans and priorities, it's organized by business line within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I'm sure our witnesses can provide more information on the details of how it's organized. The committee is also empowered to look at the report on plans and priorities while it's considering the estimates. So we have the numbers and we have the items in the RPP as well.

In terms of the estimates themselves, each vote--so vote 1, vote 5, and vote 10--is a separate and distinct item that can be debated and voted on by the committee. Traditionally, committees begin consideration of vote 1. Since it's the operating expenditures of the department, it's a very broad-natured debate and most questions will fall under vote 1.

Traditionally, the committee questions ministers on items of policy, and officials on more technical matters. Once all of the questioning is completed, the committee votes on each of the votes, so each item of the budget, vote 1, vote 5, vote 10.

Committees are empowered to reduce amounts in the estimates but they are not empowered to increase the amounts. They are not empowered to reduce by a trifling amount, so you couldn't have a motion to remove 2¢ from a vote; that's been ruled out of order in the past. As well, committees cannot ask that amounts be transferred from one purpose to another purpose, within a vote or between votes. So committees essentially have only the power to reduce estimates when they're considering them. They can reduce them or they can pass them, as they're presented.

The committee reports then what it has done with the estimates back to the House, and the chairman would usually present a report on that once the study of the estimates is completed. That must be done no later than May 31 of this year.

The Chair: Thank you.

I have a couple of comments, first to the members. As you know, we're going to try something different this year with the estimates. We have the officials here today and Thursday--assuming there are enough questions to occupy four hours, because we're not going to waste anybody's time.

We also will be having the minister and the deputy minister at some point after Easter and before the end of April, I am told. So that will be an opportunity for us to ask specific questions.

I want to remind people of what our clerk told us. This is not the time to ask policy questions. This is the time to ask specific questions about the estimates. The time to ask policy questions is when the minister is here, because it is the minister who is ultimately responsible to Parliament for policy in Fisheries and Oceans, so I'm going to ask members of Parliament to be respectful of that.

I want to give you a couple of examples of what I consider to be the difference, just so you know where I'm coming from.

As you know, we're studying the issue of invasive species. I would consider it a question of policy to ask a witness, “Why don't you give more money for public education on invasive species?” That's a policy issue. On the other hand, “How much money is there in the estimates for public information campaigns on invasive species?” is a factual question. So the one I wouldn't entertain as a question; the other one, I think, is perfectly reasonable.

We're going to be undertaking a major study of the coast guard. I don't think it would be reasonable to ask these witnesses, “Why is it the coast guard doesn't have enough money to do its job?” First of all, it's a leading question, and a loaded one. You can ask it, but it's a question that I view as more appropriately directed to the policy directors, to the minister. On the other hand, these would be factual questions: “How much money is there in the department for Canadian Coast Guard? How much money was there last year? Is there an increase? What is that increase? How is it broken down?”

So that's what I'm going to ask members to be mindful of.

As far as the witnesses are concerned, welcome. The only thing I would ask you to remember is, we realize these are estimates. That's why they're called estimates; they're not called certainties. We understand that we're looking into the future. Given that, somebody in the department sat down and figured out that these numbers are likely to be the numbers that would probably best reflect what the upcoming year is going to need, recognizing that later on you can come back with supplementaries in case forecasts have changed or allocations have changed.

In terms of questions, I'll be the judge of what's policy or not, so I'd appreciate it if you would attempt to answer whatever questions you can. If you have a concern, please do raise it with us, but what we're going to try to do, hopefully, is stick with the facts.

That said, I want to welcome James Wheelhouse, the assistant deputy minister of corporate services; Céline Gaulin, the director general of strategic management; Carl Hegge, the director general of finance and administration; and Alex Lakroni, the director of financial management.

Do any of you have an opening statement?

Mr. Wheelhouse.

Á (1110)

Mr. James Wheelhouse (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: About ten minutes.

Mr. James Wheelhouse: Okay.

Good morning. It is a pleasure to be here to represent the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in terms of the main estimates and report on plans and priorities for the coming fiscal year, and to field any questions that you have.

Just as a bit of background for the committee, while I am responsible for corporate services, I've just recently returned to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I was with Indian Affairs and Northern Development in Atlantic Canada, but previously I had spent a fair bit of time in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in most of the program areas--coast guard, fish management, or in the other areas that the department is responsible for.

[Translation]

As you know, Canada is a maritime nation. The country is surrounded by the Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific oceans, is home to the Great Lakes, and has some of the largest lakes and inland waterways in the world.

The department's core activities consist of enhancing maritime safety, ensuring the conservation and sustainable use of resources, protecting the ocean's environment and fish habitat, conducting scientific research and monitoring as well as facilitating maritime trade, commerce and ocean development.

In the next 10 to 15 minutes, I would like to, first of all, give you a brief overview of the main estimates and the report on plans and priorities for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for 2003 and 2004.

Second, I would like to underline the general measures taken by the department to respond to the challenges it faces.

Third, I will present a summary of key plans and strategies that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will use to conduct these important activities and deliver services to Canadians.

Á (1115)

[English]

So to the first issue, the main estimates and the report on plans and priorities are integral to the government's planning process, as you know. Parts I and II two of the main estimates identify the budgetary and non-budgetary spending authorities--that is, the votes to which the chair has referred.

Subsequent adjustments to the estimates are included in the reports on plans and priorities, tabled by the Honourable Lucienne Robillard, president of the Treasury Board, in the House of Commons just last Thursday. As the primary planning report to Parliament and Canadians, DFO's report on plans and priorities reflects the results of the department's internal planning processes and information systems by focusing on strategic outcomes, and that is the long-term benefit to Canadians as it relates to the mandate of our organization.

The Chair: Excuse me.

Folks, we have a witness who is giving evidence. I'd really appreciate it if we could listen to what he has to say. We have three conversations going on, and I don't think that's going to be helpful.

Thank you, Mr. Wheelhouse.

Mr. James Wheelhouse: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

DFO has worked to prepare a meaningful report on plans and priorities by adhering to the following principles: focusing on the benefit for Canadians; identifying plans and priorities used to deliver results; drawing on lessons learned and applied from past experiences; identifying challenges and risks, and explaining the rationale for the choices that have been made; identifying total plan spending by strategic outcome and priorities; and providing a basis for assessing performance.

DFO's report on plans and priorities presents the vision for DFO of the Honourable Robert Thibault, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and how the department serves Canadians and contributes to the broader government's objectives.

The report provides a summary of departmental planned spending and outlines trends in spending for the coming three years. I'd like to stress that the report provides a snapshot of the department's plans and priorities and the resources it will employ to deliver them at a point in time.

It also includes resources that were identified in the 2003 federal budget and whose allocation was recently confirmed by the central agencies. It does not, however, contain resource adjustments that have not been confirmed by the central agencies.

In the estimates, DFO highlighted that increasing and changing demands are creating operational and financial pressures. DFO, along with others, is facing the challenge of maintaining or improving overall operational effectiveness within the context of limited resources.

Responding to these diverse challenges necessitates revitalization of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, building the department that Canadians need now and for the future. By focusing on Canadians, results, responsible spending, and sound values, the department is working to ensure its programs are sustainable over the long term and continue to contribute to the broader objectives of the Government of Canada.

Though the department is examining its business through the departmental assessment and alignment project, the resources that are required to deliver the mandate, and the way the benefits are delivered to Canadians, the department will continue to support the key benefits it provides to Canadians through this time of transition.

In short, the department is focusing on business as usual and continuing to do that in an efficient and effective manner to protect the fisheries resource, the environment, and public safety while ensuring efficient vessel traffic and marine services that are responsive to the needs of Canadians.

In highlighting the department's strategic outcomes in 2002-03, to support results-based management, according to the Treasury Board Secretariat's guidelines for the preparation of the reports on plans and priorities, which recommended that departments report in terms of strategic outcomes rather than business lines, DFO restructured its 2002-03 report on plans and priorities to focus on five strategic outcomes: management and protection of fishery resources; protection of marine and freshwater environment; maritime safety; maritime commerce and ocean development; and understanding of oceans and aquatic resources.

I would like to briefly summarize key aspects of DFO's plans and priorities for 2003-04 for each of the strategic outcomes.

The first strategic outcome is the management and protection of fishery resources. Managing and protecting Canada's fisheries resources involves working with stakeholders to conserve and make sustainable use of these resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations.

To deliver this strategic outcome, the department is pursuing the following priorities in 2003-04: continuing to ensure that its governance framework reflects today's requirements of today's fisheries; continuing to strengthen its relationship with aboriginal peoples; continuing to advance conservation through its international activities; and continuing to modernize operations through the fisheries management renewal initiative.

In 2003-04 the department will use approximately $478 million, or 32% of its planned spending, to manage and protect the fisheries resource.

Á (1120)

Included in this total is $165 million in contributions, mainly for the fisheries access program. However, there will also be support for increased native participation in commercial fisheries, cooperative fisheries management arrangements, and consultations respecting aboriginal fisheries agreements.

Currently identified resources for the outlying years total $311.9 million for 2004-05 and $324.9 million for 2005-06.

[Translation]

The second strategic outcome is the protection of the marine and freshwater environment. The protection of Canada's marine and aquaculture environments of Canada is central to the government's commitments to environmental and habitat protection, safe navigation, fisheries management, and the health of aquatic species. Today, Canada's oceans, lakes and waterways have become busy places, and their aquatic resources are an integral component of the Canadian economy.

To deliver this strategic outcome, the department is pursuing the following priorities in 2003-04: first, continue to enhance the conservation, restoration, and development of marine and freshwater fish habitat through consistent application of the fish habitat management program; second, continue to conserve and sustainably develop Canada's oceans through its progress on Canada's oceans strategy; third, continue to conserve and sustainably develop Canada's oceans through its progress on international coordination; fourth, continue to act as the lead federal department in the provision of an effective Canadian oil field preparedness and response regime.

In 2003-04, the department will use approximately $268 millions, or some 17% of its planned spending, to protect the marine and freshwater environment. Many of the expenditures in this area are operating expenditures, with most of the remaining balance being capital expenditures. Grants and contributions of almost $2 millions also support this outcome.

Currently identified resources for the outlying years total $275.9 millions for 2004-05 and $263.2 millions for 2005-06.

[English]

On the third strategic outcome, marine safety, the department strives to make Canada's waterways safe--reducing the number and severity of accidents, helping people in distress and danger, and preventing the loss of life and damage to property. DFO provides up-to-date, timely, and accurate navigable products and services; maintains a comprehensive marine communications and traffic services network, and effective aids to navigation; and promotes safe and responsible boating activities.

To deliver this strategic outcome, the department will pursue the following priorities in 2003-04: one, continue to ensure safe and secure waterways; two, continue to enhance maritime safety through its ongoing modernization initiatives; and three, continue to provide high-quality hydrographic information.

In 2003-04, the department will use approximately $453 million, or 29% of its planned spending, to ensure maritime safety. Approximately three-quarters of this represents operational expenditures, with the remainder being spent on capital, and small amounts on grants and contributions of approximately $3 million.

The percentage of departmental resources spent on delivering this outcome has remained relatively constant over the past two years and will continue to represent approximately one-third of the departmental spending.

Currently identified resources for the outlying years include $466.2 million in 2004-05, and $419.7 million for 2005-06.

Á (1125)

[Translation]

The fourth strategic outcome is maritime commerce and ocean development. The department is committed to strenghtening maritime commerce and ocean development activities--activities that have a real and lasting impact on Canada's economy.

To deliver this strategic outcome, the department will pursue the following priorities in 2003-04: continue to facilitate commercial activity through the provision of efficient and accessible waterways; continue to advance Canada's international trade agenda; further the development of Canada's aquaculture industry through the aquaculture action plan; continue to develop a long term agreement with industry with respect to marine services fees on navigation services.

[English]

In 2003-04 the department will use approximately $127 million, or 8% of its planned spending, to facilitate maritime commerce and ocean development. The bulk of this represents operating expenditures.

The percentage of departmental resources spent on delivering this outcome has increased significantly over the past two years because of increased funding for active fishing harbours and aquaculture. However, planned spending will stabilize at 8% to 9% for the next three planning years.

Currently identified resources for the outlying years include $114.6 million for 2004-05 and $101.1 million for 2005-06.

I spoke of five strategic outcomes. The fifth strategic outcome is understanding of the oceans and the aquatic resources. Making decisions in all of these areas means having the best scientific advice available. The department has a long and proud history in providing sound, cutting-edge science that helps shape the policies and programs that keep Canada's fisheries and oceans healthy and productive.

To deliver this strategic outcome, the department will continue to support its strategic outcomes through the provision of high-quality, timely, new-knowledge products and scientific advice, and will complete an assessment of its science program to ensure alignment of knowledge requirements with departmental and government-wide priorities.

In 2003-04 the department will use approximately $222 million, or 14% of its planned spending, to better understand the oceans and the aquatic environment. Most of the resources associated with this outcome are operating expenditures. The percentage of departmental resources spent on delivering this outcome has decreased slightly over the past two years, but planned spending has stabilized at 14% to 15% for the next three planning years. Currently identified resources for the outlying years are $228.4 million for 2004-05 and $226.6 million for 2005-06.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, delivering complex programs and services to Canadians is a challenging endeavour that requires constant planning, monitoring, and adjustment. The documents, such as the main estimates or the report on plans and priorities, provide a picture of those plans at a specific point in time. These plans are not static, but in fact do evolve in response to emerging challenges and priorities.

Honourable members, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide you with an overview of the department's 2003-04 main estimates and the report on plans and priorities, highlighting the many benefits that DFO provides for Canadians and the comprehensive way in which the department is responding to the challenges it faces.

We are available for your questions. Thank you.

Á (1130)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Wheelhouse. And I presume those remarks are on behalf of everyone.

Mr. James Wheelhouse: Yes, they are.

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Cummins for ten minutes.

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

The difficulty here, in separating policy from numbers questions, is that much of what we do involves decision-making and evaluating.

For example, Mr. Wheelhouse, you suggested in your commentary that the department had a proud tradition of cutting-edge science. In a sense, that's a political statement, so we do have some difficulties here, I think, in determining what is and what isn't policy. It's not quite as black and white as the chairman would have us believe.

The issue here on which I'd like to comment--in actual fact, my comments reflect the comments of the previous chair--has to do with our difficulty with the departmental estimates over the last number of years, which is that it's very difficult for us to track spending. The estimates are quite broad and general, and very difficult for committee members to track. When Mr. Easter was chair, he made those same comments.

I wonder, is anybody over there listening to the difficulties we have in plowing through these estimates, the way they're presented?

The Chair: Mr. Wheelhouse.

Mr. James Wheelhouse: Mr. Cummins, if there is a specific question that the committee would like us to respond to in terms of detail, we would be quite pleased to provide an answer to that. In reporting to Parliament, we do try to be quite specific in the areas in which the money is planned to be spent, and in the report on plans and priorities, we report back against it.

I guess it's always somewhat of a judgment call, the level of detail to which we would provide that kind of insight.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: When you do present to Parliament, are you following a format that's established by Parliament, then, or is it one the department establishes?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: I'm going to ask Mr. Lakroni if he would provide some specifics on that.

The Chair: Mr. Lakroni.

Mr. Alex Lakroni (Director, Financial Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Chairman, in the preparation of main estimates, part II, we follow strict instructions from central agencies--by votes, by business line.

The Chair: I'm sorry, what do you mean by “central agencies”?

Mr. Alex Lakroni: Treasury Board Secretariat.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Alex Lakroni: However, for the RPP, we follow instructions that are not necessarily to be complied with 100%. They are more guidelines than instructions.

Last year, DFO was one of the pilot departments to enhance reporting to Parliament. We followed the guidelines, and from the feedback we had from the Treasury Board Secretariat, it was successful.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Just as a comment, I'm not sure that there was an enhancement of reporting. We had the same difficulty last year that I think we're having this year, and that is tracking spending.

The spending that you detail in these estimates, just as an example, does not split up the money spent into regions, and it's very difficult to evaluate spending if I don't have some idea where the money is spent. If you just give me a block of money and say, well, the department spent x-hundred million dollars on project A, or in this particular area, and the breakdown isn't by region, then I can't really relate to that, because so much of what we do deals with regional budgets. If I'm investigating a problem in the cod fishery, then I have to know what the regional budget is for those specific items. Just to give me a blanket budget on fisheries management from coast to coast doesn't do me any good.

Á (1135)

The Chair: That's, of course, a comment--but it's a good one.

Mr. John Cummins: It's a comment, Mr. Chairman, that I think is made on behalf of the committee. It's not just mine. It's one that the previous chair made and we all endorsed.

My point, I guess, in raising it now is that we're back with the same issue here, and the same difficulties, when we try to evaluate the departmental estimates.

The Chair: Perhaps I can suggest that you raise that issue with the minister and dig out the quote specifically from the former chair, who now sits beside the minister at the cabinet table. It might be of some interest to have him reminded of what he said. But that's not for today.

Mr. Wheelhouse has offered to give information on specifics. To use your example of the issue of the cod fishery, if you asked the officials for the breakdown of fisheries management in whatever region you want, perhaps they have the answer, or perhaps they could get the answer.

Mr. John Cummins: Let's go to the Pacific region. If we're talking about operating expenditures, let's talk about enforcement in the Pacific region. Can you tell me what the budget was for enforcement in 2002-03, and then the change for 2003-04?

The Chair: Mr. Wheelhouse, before we get to that question, where is enforcement, or what heading is it under, if I'm looking at page 17 of the RPP?

Mr. John Cummins: And that's precisely the point I was making, Mr. Chairman. It's very difficult for us to use these properly.

The Chair: Let's do it one step at a time, since this is a new approach and we're trying to find where we're going.

If you look at page 17, where exactly, under what heading, do we talk about enforcement? Then we'll go to Mr. Cummins' specific question.

Mr. John Cummins: You're welcome to chime in on that, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.

Mr. James Wheelhouse: Enforcement, Mr. Chair, in response to Mr. Cummins' question, would be captured in the area of fisheries management.

The Chair: Right. So we have fisheries management as a whole at approximately $356 million; planning on increasing it to $373 million in the upcoming year; and then, to use my own words here, decreasing shockingly in 2004-05.

Am I reading the right line? Never mind if you don't agree with my adjectives, but am I reading the right line there?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: Yes, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Now, Mr. Cummins asked you a question: Within the rubric of fisheries management, can you answer for us how much money was spent on enforcement in the Pacific region in the last year?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: We can provide the details on that. I cannot provide that number for you today. If Mr. Cummins would like that detail, we would be prepared to provide it for him.

The Chair: I think the committee would like that detail. And I think what you'll find over the next four hours is that we're looking for specifics in these meetings with you. You may not be able to give them, because this may be the first time you will have been asked; I don't know, I haven't been the chair that long, but this may be the first time you will have been asked such questions in such detail.

Given that, I understand that you may not have an answer off the top of your head, but for every question that is asked, take it as a question from the committee, unless I rule it out of order, and we will want an answer, a specific answer.

I think I've encapsulated that question, Mr. Cummins, have I not?

Á (1140)

Mr. John Cummins: Yes, you have, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: So we'll wait for an answer. We understand you don't have the answer immediately, but I think you'll be getting the feeling that we're looking for some answers here, because of course other members will have questions. I have questions. We have a former minister here from Newfoundland, who knows how these departments work. I'm sure he's going to ask some questions. I don't know if it will be about seals, but who knows? We'll find out.

So please understand that we're looking for detail.

Mr. Wheelhouse.

Mr. James Wheelhouse: Mr. Chair, in response to your observation concerning the numbers, I could, if you like, turn to Mr. Lakroni in terms of the trend as it relates to going in that particular line object, from the forecast spending to the planned over those periods of time.

The Chair: Well, it certainly is something I've noticed, but it's not my time for questions.

Now, I haven't taken any time away from Mr. Cummins, for my comments, so we're back to him.

Mr. John Cummins: I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You see, Mr. Wheelhouse, my point is that the broad figure on fisheries management, the $373 million for 2003-04, isn't sufficient. For example, in your presentation--I actually would appreciate a copy, if possible, and I'm sure other members would like that as well for the next time--you talked about.... And I'm sure, as the accountants for the department, or the money managers, whatever is the proper term, you have to in some way evaluate the effectiveness of the dollars spent.

Is that part of your mandate, yes or no?

The Chair: Mr. Wheelhouse, it doesn't have to be yes or no.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, you know what I mean.

The Chair: I'm teasing you.

Mr. John Cummins: I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but what is it? I mean, is that the case or isn't it?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: Specific to your question around evaluating the effectiveness of the expenditure, we have a review directorate in our department, which actually does a review and an assessment of some of the effectiveness associated with it. As well, an assessment is done by the various program areas with respect to the expenditure of their resources.

Mr. John Cummins: So if--

The Chair: Sorry to interrupt, but do we have anybody here today from the review directorate?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: No, we do not.

The Chair: Could we have somebody here on Thursday from the review directorate?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: I believe the associate deputy minister will be here and, yes, there will be someone to speak to that.

The Chair: Very good. Thank you.

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: I want to pursue this line of questioning. It may be that you can't answer, but I think the inability to answer is also appropriate to mention here, at this point.

Enforcement, for example, in the Fraser River region this past summer was a disaster. It doesn't matter who you talk to, they will tell you that. There were rampant violations occurring because of budget restrictions. Part of the problem--and this is verifiable, this is more than hearsay evidence--was that there was not a budget available to allow enforcement officers to work overtime. Essentially, they were confined to working 8 to 5, or whatever the office hours are. They, within their own group, made variations within the 8 to 5 where one guy would take a Monday off rather than the Saturday, just so they could cover. They tried to be as flexible as they could with limited staff.

The problem is, of course, poaching doesn't go on from 8 to 5. It's a nighttime activity. They got phone calls--this or that activity was going on, somebody was fishing where they shouldn't be, there was an illegal sale--and they were unable to respond. They had nobody there.

Who would evaluate whether the restriction in budget that occurred in 2002-03 would not impact on that particular program, the enforcement program, of the lower Fraser River?

Á (1145)

The Chair: Mr. Wheelhouse.

Mr. James Wheelhouse: Mr. Cummins, on Thursday the deputy minister for fisheries management will appear before committee. He is the senior individual who is responsible for that program area. He can provide an answer to that question, because he is the one who would do that evaluation.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cummins. That's it. You've had fifteen minutes. I took five of it, but you were only entitled to ten.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes, that's fine. Thank you.

The Chair: On that issue, for the purposes of the question, assuming everything Mr. Cummins said was 100% accurate, would the review directorate then take a look at that and see if that particular area needs more money because they ran into this problem of enforcement the last time? Is that how the department works?

We're just trying to figure out how you come to grips with problems.

Mr. James Wheelhouse: I think the review directorate would probably be in the best position to detail exactly how they would make that assessment.

I've just been advised of something here. I said that the associate deputy minister would be here Thursday and be able to speak to that. In fact, he will not be here Thursday, but we will make certain that someone from the review directorate is here for that purpose.

The Chair: Very good. Thank you.

Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could make another suggestion here.

Could you provide, or could the individual then on Thursday provide, some copies of these program reviews or evaluations that were undertaken in the past year, and give us some indication of what program reviews are going to be scheduled for next year, so that we could track the effectiveness of the expenditures?

The Chair: As an example, you mean, one that we could work through.

Mr. John Cummins: As an example, yes. I'd like to know what program reviews were conducted on, in particular, the issue I asked about, which is enforcement on the Fraser River in 2002-03. I have some other areas of interest, but I would like to see those program evaluations so that we can determine whether or not the department is monitoring its spending, and see as well what program reviews they're anticipating conducting this upcoming year.

The Chair: Let's do this logically.

Is there some reason that you would deem any of that information protected?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: No, but again, I would defer to my colleague from the review directorate to answer that. I will advise that individual of the nature of the question asked today.

The Chair: I think that's a reasonable answer, and a careful one, but unless the review directorate--and maybe you could pass this on--has some reason that such information is protected, then it should be available for Thursday, or very soon thereafter.

Now, that said, it's Monsieur Roy, cinq minutes.

[Translation]

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

I have some specific questions regarding the financial tables that you have presented, particularly Table 6-1, entitled “Summary of capital spending by business line”. At the end, with regard to harbours, you will see the amount of $29 millions for 2002-03.

The Chair: On which page is it in French?

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: It's at page 57.

So you have, for 2002-03, an amount of $29 millions for harbours; for 2003-04, the amount is $27 millions, and so on. At the end of the line, we have the amount of $22 millions dollars for 2005-06.

I would like to know whether these capital expenditures are dedicated to repairs only. And how do you determine these amounts, given that every time we had a discussion about harbours, we realized that the budgets were totally inadequate and there was a continuing deterioration of infrastructures.

I would like to know how much you intend to spend for harbours, but first of all, I would like to know on what these amounts will be spent and what kind of harbours and capital expenditures we are talking about.

Mr. Alex Lakroni: For capital expenditures, the budget is determined according to the plan that we call long-term investment plan and that is submitted to and approved by Treasury Board.

According to that plan, capital expenditures are managed by centre of expertise or by type of capital expenditures. So, the decreasing capital expenditures for small harbours, from $29 millions to $27 millions and then to $22 millions clearly reflect the overall decrease of our capital budgets. We have had approvals, as you know, in the framework of program integrity. However, these approvals expire in 2004-05 and the available budgets will be decreasing accordingly.

Á (1150)

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Are budgets sufficient to maintain harbours and repair them when they are in need of repairs?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: I do not think I can answer directly to that question, as to whether the budget is sufficient, but I can say that...

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: I am sorry, but your own officials, particularly in Quebec City, are always telling us that budgets are totally inadequate. There are very serious problems in the harbours of our region, where there are fishermen, and the official in the Quebec division are giving us the answer that the budgets are absolutely insufficient.

I believe that you must give us an answer because as we speak, on the ground, harbours keep deteriorating and it will be more and more costly to repair them.

My question is a very practical one. If you have a leaking roof in your house, you must have a budget to repair the roof. Do you have sufficient budgets, at this time, to maintain the harbours and to at least repair those that you want to maintain and that are useful to the community? That is my question. It is not a political question. Do you have enough money, practically speaking, to maintain and repair the harbours?

[English]

The Chair: Just so that I understand Monsieur Roy's question, if I understand these tables correctly, table 6-1 deals with capital spending, but table 3-1, under harbours, deals with everything. And I notice that the planned spending under harbours for the coming year is $91.3 million, whereas capital spending would be $27 million of that $91.3 million.

Am I reading that correctly, first of all?

So I take it that capital spending--this is, I believe, what Mr. Roy is getting at--includes repairs. Or is capital spending new purchases? Let's start with that.

[Translation]

Mr. James Wheelhouse: First, capital spending are expenditures of more than $1 million. It is a separate part of the budget. It is a portion of the total budget of $92 millions. The remaining will be distributed among small craft harbours, depending of the necessary repairs. There is a portion for maintenance and we spend $92 millions in total, as you said. Moreover, in the year past, we have received some moneys for maintenance and investments to improve the condition of small craft harbours.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Perhaps I could put my question differently. How much money would we need today to bring to a satisfying state of repairs the harbours that Fisheries and Oceans Canada is responsible for? I repeat that there are problems presently because some of the repair works are being delayed in some harbours. So I put the question to you: how much money do we need today to bring to an acceptable condition the harbours that are owned by Fisheries and Oceans Canada? What amount would we need to bring the harbours to a good state of repairs?

Á (1155)

Mr. James Wheelhouse: I will say, frankly, that the question of whether we have sufficient amounts is a matter of assessment and somewhat speculative. I can say that this report aims at determining precisely the amount of money and the plans that are linked to the available amounts of money.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: I will yet ask the question in a different way. Your department certainly made an assessment of what it would cost to repair each and every harbour that it owns. So, just give me the total amount.

Mr. James Wheelhouse: We have a planning process for the next five years in order to make the necessary repairs for each and every small craft harbour.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: And what is the total for all the harbours in the country?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: For next year?

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: In total. According to your estimations, how much would it cost to repair the infrastructure? I will give you a concrete example, that of Mont-Louis Ouest, that is owned by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. You may not know that harbour, but Georges will know that harbour as well. We know that in Mont-Louis Ouest, it will cost an amount of x number of dollars to repair the infrastructure. Such an assessment has been made for all small craft harbours. So would you please give me the total amount of how much it would cost to repair all small craft harbours in Canada.

Mr. James Wheelhouse: I do not have that figure with me today, but I will be able to provide the information that you have requested, based on the total value of assessments that have been made to date.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Okay. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Excusez-moi, Monsieur Roy, I just want to be clear on this.

The $91.3 million shown in table 3-1 would include repairs to all small craft harbours, would it not? The estimation is for the upcoming year.

Mr. Lakroni, is that correct?

Mr. Alex Lakroni: The answer is yes.

The Chair: Thank you.

And in table 6-1, which Monsieur Roy was referring to, will the repair money come from the $27 million figure, or will there be more money available for the repairs other than that $27 million?

Mr. Lakroni.

Mr. Alex Lakroni: As Mr. Wheelhouse mentioned, there are two types of repairs. The repairs are determined by the amounts, or what we call the threshold. If the repairs are over $1 million, they are to be funded from the capital money. If they are under $1 million, they are to be funded from the operating money.

The Chair: Okay, but both funds are part of the $91.3 million, is that correct?

Mr. Alex Lakroni: Correct.

The Chair: Thank you. That's what I was trying to get at.

So the $27 million is part of the $91.3 million. And it's a question of allocation, because I take it the $27 million deals with over $1 million. Is that the idea?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: That is correct.

The Chair: All right, thank you.

Mr. Efford, please, ten minutes.

Mr. R. John Efford (Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I listened to Mr. Cummins and Mr. Roy ask you some questions, and saw your inability to answer, so I don't know if I should be asking any of the questions otherwise. So I'm going to make a few comments, with probably a question at the end.

DFO is responsible for the management of our resources, as you very clearly outlined in your preamble in your briefing to us. But I'll tell you, Mr. Wheelhouse, living in Newfoundland and Labrador, being part of the Atlantic Canada fisheries, and seeing the way in which our fisheries have been managed, and the desperation and the things we're facing again this year, it gives me cold shivers when I look at table 3-1 and see, under “Fisheries and Oceans Science”--a big issue--$160 million this year, nationally, $152 million in 2004, and $140 million in 2005. So we're looking at a decrease in science over the next two years.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, we're crying out for an increase in science, because the scientists themselves in DFO are telling us they do not have enough resources to do accurate research into the state of our stocks. In fact, they're going so far as to say they don't have enough fuel to put into the boats.

My question following up from that is, can you tell me how much is spent in science in Newfoundland and Labrador, in the science department of DFO, and how many scientists are actually working there?

Â (1200)

The Chair: Mr. Wheelhouse, a good, specific question.

Mr. James Wheelhouse: That's a question my ADM colleague from science would have to answer for you on Thursday.

The Chair: Do you think he's coming?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: The ADM is a she, and her name is Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright. She will be here on Thursday.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. R. John Efford: So anything that's related to science will have to wait until Thursday.

The Chair: No, not necessarily.

Mr. R. John Efford: Well, I need to know, how much is being spent on science in Newfoundland and Labrador?

Look, we're facing another closure of the fishery in our province. In 1992, through overfishing and not enough scientific information and not enough cooperation, or whatever, we caused a major collapse of the groundfish industry, a cod stock unequalled anywhere in the world, and eleven years later we're facing a further closure. The scientists themselves are telling us....

We need to know, how much money will be spent on science in Newfoundland and Labrador out of the $160 million that's going to be spent across Canada, for everything?

I can't get the answer to the question, so I'll wait until Thursday.

Let's go back to the harbours. In every single harbour in Canada, every single one, the regional DFO small craft harbours office sends in annually the total cost of requirements for the whole of Bonavista--Trinity--Conception. So let's take every federal riding in Newfoundland; in Bonavista--Trinity--Conception, the small craft office in St. John's sends up to DFO in Ottawa the total requirements, if you had enough money, for what it would cost.

How is it, then, we can't answer the question of what the total requirements are for Newfoundland--well, for Canada? Because I can tell you, Mr. Wheelhouse, I have a requirement this year of at least $100 million in Bonavista--Trinity--Conception alone--that's alone, in one riding--to bring the wharves up to standard.

So why is it we can't get an answer? And now you're even going to drop us. It's going to go from $91 million to $64 million in 2006. Is it managed on a needs basis or on how much money DFO allots to it on its own merits?

The Chair: Mr. Wheelhouse.

Mr. James Wheelhouse: If I understand you correctly, Mr. Efford, there are two questions here. First, specifically, how much does DFO allocate to science for the Newfoundland region?

Mr. R. John Efford: Yes.

Mr. James Wheelhouse: In the main estimates for 2003-04, that is $17.8 million. That is broken out by sectors and regions in table 6 of the main estimates book. That's specific to science.

My colleague, the ADM of science, can provide you more details with respect to the number of scientists who actually work in the Newfoundland region.

The second part of your question, if I understood it correctly, is that if there's $100 million worth of expenditures that are occurring in the Trinity--Conception Bay area, or requirement for expenditures, on small craft harbours in that area alone, how do we account for the total country?

Mr. R. John Efford: Yes.

Mr. James Wheelhouse: One of the ways in which we deal with that is a multi-year expenditure plan so that we aren't facing all of those expenditures in one year.

Now, I can't be specific in terms of the $100 million requirement for the Trinity--Conception Bay area, but if you take the country and lay it out in terms of all of the demands, and then you look at it over a five-year capital plan, then what you can do is use the larger envelope of funding to address the needs over a time period.

Mr. R. John Efford: That was the question my colleague opposite asked, and that was the question I was leading to: What are the total requirements in Canada today for small craft harbours to bring our wharves, so vital to the economic development of our community in terms of the fishing industry, up to standard?

If you had the money today, what would be the total requirement? Would it be $1 billion, would it be $2 billion? You answered the question partly by saying that over the next three or four or five years, that's how you've allotted your money on the requirements. So what is the total requirement?

Â (1205)

Mr. James Wheelhouse: That I'd be prepared to provide a response to in terms of the honourable member's question earlier, as well.

Mr. R. John Efford: My final question--

The Chair: Mr. Efford, sorry; I won't take this away from your time.

Mr. Wheelhouse, you referred to table 6 of the main estimates. I just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. Did I hear you correctly, that it's table 6 of the main estimates?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: Yes.

The Chair: I have the main estimates here, and I don't know what you're referring to.

The main estimates here, colleagues, are represented in the small pieces of paper our clerk has photocopied for us.

Where is table 6, Mr. Wheelhouse; what page?

Mr. Alex Lakroni: Mr. Chair, Mr. Wheelhouse is referring to a table we use internally to build the tables for the main estimates. We'd be happy to share the internal breakdown with this committee, if that's what you'd like.

The Chair: But my point is, of course, we have no idea how you've come up with your numbers, which is why we're asking the questions. We have no idea what table 6 is, as illustrated by the fact that we can't find it.

Let me ask it a different way. Where would table 6 be in the main estimates? Where would you find those numbers...and I hesitate to use the word “buried”, but where is table 6 located, perhaps, in the main estimates?

Mr. Alex Lakroni: In the main estimates?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Alex Lakroni: This level of detail is not required as per the instructions from--

The Chair: This I understand, but let's say table 6 has a figure of $10 million, or whatever it is. That number has to be plugged into another number that ultimately appears in the main estimates. What number does it appear in? That's my question.

Mr. Alex Lakroni: Table 6 totals $1, 468 billion.

The Chair: Mr. Efford, are you listening to this?

Mr. R. John Efford: Yes.

Mr. Alex Lakroni: That amount is the total of all the votes proposed in the report on plans and priorities, including statutory votes. This table, which is the main table of the RPP, is broken down by a variety of ways in the estimates. However, the breakdown by sector, by region, is not in the estimates. This is our table to build.

The Chair: But perhaps you can understand why there's a level of frustration amongst members. We don't do this on a daily basis--you do. You understand what you're talking about--we don't. That's why we're asking these questions.

Now, we were talking about small craft harbours. Mr. Efford specifically asked, if money dropped from the sky tomorrow and we could repair every harbour in Canada immediately, has anybody done a calculation of how much that would cost?

I think the answer was, yes, we'll be able to give you that figure. The next question is, then, is that or is that not in the main estimates? Because that's a pie in the sky figure. We're not going to get that money to be able to repair every harbour, but somebody, somewhere in your department must know how much all of the managers reported all the harbours would cost to fix tomorrow.

Somebody else may say, okay, it'll cost $1 billion to fix all these harbours, but we don't have $1 billion. We do have $52 million. Instead of fixing the dike, we'll plug it and hope it doesn't burst on us. This year, as the person who's doing this, my decision is that we're going to put my finger in that hole, that hole, and that hole, and hope that the dike holds.

So whoever that person is comes up with what I presume was the $27 million for this year for harbours.

Am I looking at it approximately the way it's done, or is it much more complicated than that?

Mr. Wheelhouse.

Â (1210)

Mr. James Wheelhouse: We have a five-year capital plan associated with small craft harbours that outlines the repairs we would look to be doing over the next five years. That would feed and be part of the estimates that would be complementary to the main estimates that are provided.

The Chair: And if we're looking for that information, the place we would look for it would be table 6-1, or is there some other place we would find it? Is it under both table 3-1 and table 6-1, depending on the amount required to effect the repair? You were talking about under $1 million and over $1 million.

We're just trying to understand how you folks think.

Mr. Alex Lakroni: I think there are two sides to your questions. The first side is, how much would it cost the government to repair all the harbours in Canada? The second dimension is, how much money does DFO have to do the repairs to the harbours? These are two different questions.

The Chair: By George, I think you've got it! Those are the questions.

Mr. Alex Lakroni: What you will find in these estimates are our plans on where to spend the money that's been approved for the highest priorities, the highest repairs. Part of our working practice, as you clearly highlighted, is that we do planning to determine where the priorities are in the context of the budget constraints we have. But that dimension is not reflected in this book.

The Chair: Understood. But any money that is going to the repair of harbours is shown only in tables 3-1 and 6-1. There are no other tables where we could find money for the repair of harbours. Is that right?

Mr. Alex Lakroni: That is right.

The Chair: Okay. Just so we know how to read this.

Sorry, Mr. Efford, you still have a question. Go ahead.

Mr. R. John Efford: I'm almost tempted to ask a question on an article that was in the paper a couple of days ago about the sterilization and castration of seals, and how much it's going to cost. But I'll leave that for another time. Seriously, that was in the paper.

I'll go back to the coast guard. God knows, from east to west, north to south, the coast guard is a big issue. A total of $94 million has been allotted in new moneys in the budget for coast guard expenditures. Can one of you tell me how that money is going to be spent? Is it going to be spent in fuel, is it going to be spent in new boats? One new boat for the coast guard must cost $100 million to $150 million.

Does anybody have any idea of how that money is going to be spent this year?

The Chair: Mr. Efford, where did you come up with the number?

Mr. R. John Efford: The $94 million?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. R. John Efford: It was in the budget, that increase.

The Chair: All right. Understood.

Maybe, then, the officials could direct us, in this RPP book, to where we're talking about the coast guard so that we can follow along as you give us your answer. Where do we talk about the coast guard? Page...?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: Page 57.

The Chair: Page 57, did you say?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: Well, Mr. Chair, there are a number of areas. We had been looking at, for example, page 17, where table 3-1 outlined expenditures for the coming three years.

Coast guard is reflected in those areas in a number of their program responsibilities. Now, they aren't highlighted as coast guard as such, but they have responsibilities for marine navigation services, marine communications and traffic services, ice-breaking operations, and rescue, safety and environmental response.

The Chair: Anything else there? Because we can easily add the four figures together. Is there any place else we would find the coast guard?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: They conduct programs for some of the other areas. In other words, for example, those platforms would be used for hydrographic survey work, and they would be used for conducting scientific work, such as biological or physical and chemical science work.

The Chair: And I presume some portion of the policy and internal services amount would be allocated to coast guard, would they not? They would have to be paid, and presumably they conduct policy.

Â (1215)

Mr. R. John Efford: There's something not right here.

From my understanding of the needs and concerns of coast guard officials, the boats are in disrepair and there are major problems with the fleet right across Canada. My understanding--correct me if I'm wrong--is that the extra moneys announced in the budget this year would go, if not to build new vessels, at least to repairs. Don't tell me that's going to go into new services that will place buoys and security and everything else.

How much of that money is going to go to upgrading the coast guard fleet of ships?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: You're quite correct, Mr. Efford, a component of the new budget was allocated specifically to coast guard. The number was $47.3 million, and that number was to be used for ongoing and major repairs to DFO's fleet and shore-based infrastructure, and capital replacement for the shore-based infrastructure.

Mr. R. John Efford: So it was $47 million, not $94 million?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: Yes.

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.): It's $47 million per year for two years. No?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: No, my understanding is the $47.3 million is ongoing. It relates specifically to the ongoing requirement, over the years, of $47.3 million for coast guard.

The Chair: What does that mean? Is that $47.3 million each year or $47.3 million one time?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: Each year, as an ongoing requirement. It has been put into the new budget.

Mr. R. John Efford: To do what?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: Vessel repairs and repairs for the shore-based installation for coast guard.

The Chair: Anything else, Mr. Efford?

Mr. R. John Efford: No.

The Chair: We're going to be conducting an in-depth study of the coast guard. We'd like you to prepare for us--not for Thursday, necessarily--a detailed breakdown of what money is allocated strictly to coast guard, and for what purposes, for 2002-03, for 2003-04, and for the next upcoming two years, since you do a three-year rolling plan, I think you said in your opening remarks. We'd appreciate that by the end of April, if you can get that to us by that time.

As you can hear from the questions, try to be as specific as possible so that we know how much is going to ships, how much is going to buoys, how much is going to MCTS hardware, how much is going to allocation of person-years, and that type of thing on the issue of coast guard. Okay?

Mr. Hearn.

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

I want to follow up first on the infrastructure question. Perhaps we can answer questions asked by Mr. Efford on how much it will take to upgrade our facilities. We can go back perhaps a year, to when we had Mr. Bergeron here in front of the committee.

On the record, in one of the reports actually tabled by the committee, Mr. Bergeron made it quite clear--and I may not be quoting him word for word, but this is pretty close to what he said--that to bring our infrastructure up to standard it would require $400 million across the country. At the same time, he said that 21% of our own fully owned federal DFO facilities are unsafe to use. That is on the record, in front of this committee, also as part of one of the reports we tabled to the House of Commons.

Because of the information that was brought to the committee, and the ensuing report that we could not have ready in time for the budget of the fall of 2001, Mr. Martin's budget at the time, the committee wrote to the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister stressing the need to put extra money into marine infrastructure. The government did so, and in the fall budget of 2001, $100 million was put in above and beyond the regular funding, as you well know.

However, we're seeing a couple of things happening now. We're seeing over the next couple of years a reduction. I am being told from internal sources that the amount of money allocated has been whittled away to some degree whereby we're not getting the boost that we thought we were getting in that division. As well, in terms of the cuts that departments have been asked to make, the $1 billion cut to which all departments have been asked to contribute, my understanding is that DFO has been asked to contribute approximately $17 million.

Will some of that cut come out of the infrastructure budget? Or perhaps a better question to ask is, from which areas will the department meet its commitments to come up with its share of the $1 billion cut?

Â (1220)

Mr. James Wheelhouse: Mr. Hearn, to my understanding, the $100 million that was added was distributed over a five-year period, so $20 million a year. That money did go to the infrastructure and the upgrade of the infrastructure. That is what it was intended for, and that's where that money flowed to.

On the comments that were made with respect to 21% of the facilities being unsafe to use, we have a responsibility to keep the facilities safe and secure. We work to do that. I'm not certain what that comment was alluding to. It was before my time. So I'll speak to what I do know at this point in time.

With respect to the $1 billion reallocation, the government has made a decision to reallocate funds to priorities of a higher level. Yes, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been asked to contribute to that, and that's under--

Mr. Loyola Hearn: How much?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: That's under some consideration right now. We're working with Treasury Board to determine how much, and how that cut will be taken.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: So you have no specifics.

Mr. James Wheelhouse: I do not have any specifics at this point in time, because it's a work in progress.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: No, I appreciate that.

On the wharves...and you mentioned that it's before your time, but I would suggest you check the records. As the committee members are well aware, Mr. Bergeron was quite specific. Like some other members here, I represent a district with a lot of federal facilities, and I can show you pictures I personally have taken of huge DFO solely owned wharves that have on them a government sign saying, “Unsafe to use”. In fact, examples like that helped us get the issue in front of the committee and get the minister here.

We have a tremendous amount of facilities across this country, in each district, that badly need repair. Some of them, as I say, are unsafe to use. Some of them are at a point where, if something is not done soon.... As the old saying goes, “A stitch in time saves nine”; if we don't put that stitch in today, you're going to have to replace the facility, perhaps, if you get a bad storm.

So that's a major concern. A lot of money is required.

You mentioned a five-year plan, and you mentioned priorities. I'm not sure how long you've been in your position, but undoubtedly it will be a learning experience over the next while. I would suggest that in relation to any five-year plan that is set, perhaps upon submissions from the regions, these things can change very quickly. Mother Nature can change the plan quite often. All you need is a bad winter storm, with ice moving into a harbour or whatever, that could easily destroy crucial facilities overnight. So that certainly changes the plan.

Another factor that changes priorities quite often is the political factor. I would suggest that even though the public servants in the area and in the different regional divisions throughout will submit priorities based upon the work of the public servants in the field--who do a very good job, by the way--the priorities submitted to them for work in any given year are seldom the priorities that are delivered upon when the announcements are made. That's standard. And I'm not pointing fingers at any particular party.

But wharves are one thing that, like the old roads and water and sewer projects, can be easily assigned politically, and that's the way they are in relation to the amount of funding that goes in certain areas, and which projects within the areas are submitted.

So I'm not sure how good it is, or how reasonable it is, or how effective it is to have a five-year plan.

Â (1225)

The Chair: Is that advice for the department, Mr. Hearn, or do you want a comment?

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Perhaps a comment.

The Chair: Mr. Wheelhouse.

Mr. James Wheelhouse: In response to the comment or question, undoubtedly I have a lot to learn over the next while. I'm fully aware of some of the factors that you spoke of. I come from the east coast, and have seen the ice at work and the need for dredging and some of the other factors.

What we as public servants strive to do is conduct our business in a very businesslike manner. That means a planned approach to the capital spending and the operations budgets. That's why we have a five-year plan that tries to lay it out.

I don't for a minute, and would not, enter into the realm of the political elements that are there. It's clearly just a business decision in terms of the infrastructure needs and the funding and how we intend to spend it.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: That's fair ball. Certainly from my own work with the public servants, and the people in those divisions in particular, I can say that the job you're doing is top-notch, and we can't argue with that.

I have one other short question, Mr. Chair.

The minister has indicated that within a very short time he is going to be making an announcement on what the government, what the department, intends to do about the downturn of the cod fishery in Atlantic Canada. Undoubtedly, since the original announcements were made by the minister that something had to be done, it had to be factored into a budget, because to deal with a problem of such magnitude is going to cost somebody money. I'm just wondering if DFO has factored in x number of dollars, if they have a contingency plan to deal with the downturn. Whether it's closure, whether it's downsizing, or whatever, there is going to be a horrendous effect on Atlantic Canada whenever he makes his decision based upon FRCC recommendations and whatever.

Has the department factored in funding for that, and if so, how much?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: With respect to what the minister will be deciding on the cod fishery, it would be presumptuous of me to comment. What I can comment on is the manner in which we do our planning and financial spending.

I think your previous comment with respect to the fact that events happen is reflective of the way in which the department has to sometimes be agile, understand the highest priorities as they arise at any given moment in time, and be in a position to respond to that. That's part of what supplementary estimates do. It's also part of what we do in terms of internal reallocation on an ongoing basis. As well, it's part of, for example, what government clearly decided recently in terms of the $1 billion reallocation.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wheelhouse.

Monsieur Farrah.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the committee, Madam, Gentlemen. I would like to deal with the marine communications and traffic services, the MCTS. As you know, the committee has just tabled a report on these services. The committee obviously travelled all across Canada, both on the West Coast and the East Coast, and has visited these service centres. On page 18, table 3-1, we see that the forecast spending for 2002-03 for Marine Communications and Traffic Services is $69.2 millions.

Â (1230)

[English]

The Chair: That's page 17 in the English version.

Mr. Georges Farrah: And page 18 in the French.

[Translation]

Mr. James Wheelhouse: I have found it. Thank you.

Mr. Georges Farrah: Okay. Is that the total operating budget for the Marine Communications and Traffic Services Centres?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: Yes, that's correct.

Mr. Georges Farrah: Okay. Let's see how these spendings evolve over the next few years. We have $69.2 million in 2002-03; $70.4 millions in 2003-04; $70.4 millions in 2004-05; and $60 millions in 2005-06, which represent a decrease of approximately 15%. Obviously, there will be some inflation during those years and we will end up with a lower budget in 2005-06.

On table 6-1, on page 57 in French, we have the capital spendings. For Marine Communications and Traffic Services, we have $9 millions in 2002-03, $13 millions in 2003-04, $20 millions in 2004-05, and $18 millions in 2005-06. What calculations did you make to end up with these long-term planned spending? Does that mean that you want to maintain all centres that presently exist, given that we will have a smaller envelope in three or four years? More particularly, I would like to know how you ended up with these figures. And what is the underlying reality of this budget planning?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: First, let me...

[English]

The Chair: Sorry, Mr. Wheelhouse, but I had this marked as a question as well, since the committee has studied this. I'd like to focus on this.

You have increased capital spending for MCTS this year by $4 million, estimated, from $9 million to $13 million. However, the total MCTS has gone up by $1.2 million. So something has to give. If you're going to find $4 million for capital expenditures on MCTS, but the total MCTS is only going up by $1.2 billion, it means something else in MCTS must have gone down, or must be going down.

Monsieur Farrah is asking how these figures were calculated and where you are allocating the money, on this issue specifically.

[Translation]

Mr. James Wheelhouse: First, I can say that it would probably be more appropriate for my colleague the commissionner of the Coast Guard to answer these specific questions about the nature of the program.

Concerning the evolving...

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry to interrupt, but do you know if he's coming Thursday?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: In fact, it is the deputy commissioner, Ursula Menke. I believe she will be here Thursday, yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah: The deputy commissionner?

The Chair: Yes.

[English]

So perhaps we'll get the answer at that time.

Thank you, and sorry for the interruption.

[Translation]

Mr. James Wheelhouse: Concerning how we have determined these figures, I can ask Mr. Lakroni to give a more detailed answer.

Mr. Alex Lakroni: Thank you, Mr. Wheelhouse.

Mr. Farrah, your analysis is right. In total, the capital spending is increasing, while the total budget allocated to marine communications is being reduced. This has to do with the management of the Coast Guard. Given that this service comes under the Coast Guard, it is the latter that allocates amounts to various priorities. The total budget of MCTS is being reduced, but as Mr. Wheelhouse has just said, the deputy commissionner will be able to answer this specific question.

Â (1235)

The Chair: Mr. Farrah.

Mr. Georges Farrah: Thank you. So we will have more information on Thursday. That is okay. More generally, if...

[English]

The Chair: Perhaps you could give that person a heads-up on the nature of the question.

Mr. Alex Lakroni: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah: Let's come back to table 3-1, under the heading “Total Main Estimates, Net Planned Spending“. In 2002-03, we have $1,591 millions and in 2005-06, we end up with $1,335 million. My question is quite simple. Do you believe that with such a decrease, the department will be able to fulfill its mission?

[English]

It's just a general question--overall.

[Translation]

Mr. James Wheelhouse: You should perhaps adress that question to someone else than me. As I said in my introductory remarks, we are presently doing a ministerial review of programs in order to allocate resources to the highest priorities. That review will take up some time, and we will work together with the Treasury Board, the central agency, to determine the basis for that assessment. Once we have completed that exercise, we will see to it that the department's priorities are in line with the available resources for the year 2005-06.

Your other question is much more far reaching and I believe that it should be put to the minister rather than to me.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Cummins.

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

In table 3-1, under fisheries management, it's pretty much a global designation. The forecast spending for 2003-04 is $373.7 million. How do you break down that global designation? What's the actual breakdown?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: I'm going to ask if Mr. Lakroni would respond to that.

Mr. Alex Lakroni: The operating budget is in one of the tables. I'll just take a couple of minutes to find it....

The Chair: Take your time, no problem.

While Mr. Lakroni is looking for that, I'll mention that we have Mr. Matthews after Mr. Cummins. Then I'm happy to go back to the opposition again, but with your indulgence, I'd first like to ask just a couple of specific questions.

How are we doing, Mr. Lakroni?

Mr. Alex Lakroni: We will have to take this question broken down by vote. I have the grants and contributions component, but as to the other two components--namely, operating and capital--I don't necessarily have the documents, although we'd be happy to provide you the information as a follow-up.

The Chair: As a follow-up when? Are you coming back Thursday?

Mr. Alex Lakroni: We will make sure the information comes to you on Thursday.

The Chair: Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Wheelhouse.

Mr. James Wheelhouse: If I might, Mr. Chair, the assistant deputy minister for fisheries management, Mr. Pat Chamut, should be here, and he can provide a direct response to that question on Thursday.

The Chair: Very good. Thank you.

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: The estimates talk about an expanding role for aquaculture, which results in increased pressure on wild stocks--

The Chair: Arguably.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Cummins: Oh, I don't think there's any question about that, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Strike my comment from the record.

Mr. John Cummins: To continue, there is a resulting use of a variety of chemicals and drugs in the operation of these farms. And yet the habitat management budget is decreasing. If you look at the budget in 2002-03, it's in the neighbourhood of $96 million. In 2003-04, it's $84.8 million.

How do you square that circle? How can the budget for habitat be declining when there's probably increased pressure on that particular facet of the department?

Â (1240)

Mr. James Wheelhouse: I think that's a question the ADM responsible for that particular area is most well positioned to answer.

The Chair: Then can we ask this: Where is aquaculture in table 3-1?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: At this point in time, aquaculture, if my recollection is correct, is embedded in policy and internal services.

The Chair: If that's not accurate, you'll let us know?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: That is accurate. I've had some nods from my colleagues beside me.

The Chair: Thank you.

Now, how much is it?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: I'm going to have to provide that number to the committee subsequently. I don't recollect it off the top of my head, although I just recently heard it.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you.

Let's just deal with that. Perhaps you're not going to be able to respond, but I think the questions are appropriate budget questions here. They have to do with funding and the ability of the department to perform its constitutional obligation.

Now, part of the concern with aquaculture is the fact that environmental assessments are to be conducted, and there's to be site approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. For example, currently we have four pilot projects in British Columbia, and only one has been approved under these environmental assessments.

Where would there be allocation in the budget to conduct these site assessments for aquaculture?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: That budget allocation is contained within the policy and internal services component.

Mr. John Cummins: How much is that budget? How much budget are you allocating to determining site evaluations, and why would the portion under the Navigable Waters Protection Act be coming in under policy and services?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: The manner in which I answered the question, Mr. Cummins, related to the current organizational structure and where our aquaculture component of the organization resides. The nature of the question is such that there are multiple individuals who hold responsibilities around the approval of sites. So to provide a succinct number that would directly answer how much money is allocated to a site approval is somewhat difficult to do, because there are various responsibilities, for example, inside of science, or inside of other jurisdictional areas.

I think that's the best I can do in answering your question.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, somebody somewhere has to be overseeing the operation. There has to be somebody who answers for it. There must be a budget for those folks, is there not?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: Yes, there is, and that's how I answered the question, that this component of aquaculture is embedded in the policy and internal services component of the budget.

Â (1245)

Mr. John Cummins: I'm under the impression--again, correct me if I'm wrong--that the figures I gave under the $96 million, which is being reduced to $84 million in 2003, is not under policy and internal services. The information I have is that money for aquaculture is spent under that, habitat management and environmental science.

The Chair: What page are you on?

Mr. John Cummins: It's in table 3-1.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. John Cummins: Now you're telling me that it's not, that it comes under policy and internal services.

Mr. James Wheelhouse: The nature of the habitat assessment component would be, in fact, conducted inside of the habitat management element of the budget. Again, this is a question that is probably most appropriate for the ADM of science or the ADM of policy, because they know their programs in intimate detail.

You asked a question on the oversight for the approval of site licences, and my understanding is that this is embedded within the policy and internal services component of the organization.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins, I have to give Mr. Matthews a chance now.

Mr. John Cummins: Could I just ask, Mr. Chairman, that when these folks come next time we have a breakdown on this aquaculture spending, on where it is in the budget? I'd like that identified. I'd like to be able to plot the spending, because if you can't plot the spending, how do you evaluate the money being spent?

The Chair: So you'll let the appropriate officials know what Mr. Cummins' question is, and if they can answer it immediately, great; if not, as soon as possible.

Mr. James Wheelhouse: Yes, we will, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Matthews.

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

Thanks to the officials for coming.

Just on the harbours allocation, in table 3-1 the forecast spending for 2002-03 shows as $72.9 million. The fiscal year ended yesterday. Do you have any idea, or would you know yet, what was actually spent in the last fiscal year? Or is it a little too early for that?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: It's a little bit too early. We're still rolling the numbers together.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Do you expect it to be somewhere around there, or less? Any idea?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: That would be speculative on my part, and I don't think I'd be prepared to do that right now.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Okay.

Planned spending for this fiscal year is $91.3 million, and for 2004-05 it's $91.4 million, which shows an increase of just about $20 million from 2002-03.

Is it fair to say that $20-million increase is a result of the $20 million over five years in additional money? Is that what's reflected here? If not, can you tell me where the $20 million came from for this year?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: You are correct, Mr. Matthews, that's what the differential is.

Mr. Bill Matthews: If that's the case--and I know you don't know your final figures for the last fiscal year, which just finished a day ago, so perhaps you can answer this some other time--then why wasn't $90 million spent...? I guess what I'm trying to say is, the $20 million in additional money for five years came in over the fall of 2001, I believe, so that should have been reflected in the 2002-03 budget, which just ended.

I'm just trying to determine, within my own mind, why it would be $20 million less.

Mr. James Wheelhouse: That $20 million has been factored in over a five-year period. It's the baseline component that has been fluctuating.

I'll turn to Mr. Lakroni in that regard.

Mr. Alex Lakroni: Thank you.

The $72.9 million for harbours does not reflect the $20 million that was approved in the budget. The $20 million that was approved in the budget is in addition to this $72.9 million.

It was not reflected because on that item, we had to finalize authorities with the board, and it was reflected in supplementary estimates, which come after the main estimates.

Mr. Bill Matthews: So you're telling me that $72.9 million is going to go up significantly over last year. Is that what you're really telling me?

Â (1250)

Mr. Alex Lakroni: Yes.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Okay. Fair enough.

In light of the $20 million in additional money for five years, can you explain to me how you're going to spend $27 million less in 2005-06? Because that's $7 million less than the $20 million in additional money. Can you give me some rationale as to why that might happen, or what's prompting that?

Do you get my point? In 2005-06, your harbours budget is $64.4 million, which is $27 million less than what we're getting this year. So if we didn't get the $20 million extra for five years.....

Do you know what I'm saying? We're $27 million less than we are this year. If we didn't have the $20 million less, we'd probably be $7 million less. We're $27 million less, in two fiscal years' time, than what we are this year. So what's going to cause that, even though we're getting $20 million in additional dollars?

The Chair: Another way of asking this is, why is it dropping to $64.4 million in the estimates?

Mr. Bill Matthews: And it makes it even more unacceptable when you know you're getting the additional $20 million in that fiscal year that was promised in the fall of 2001. I guess that's my point, that it's harder to justify a drop of $27 million when we're supposed to be picking up an additional $20 million in that fiscal year.

Mr. James Wheelhouse: I don't have the answer. At this point in time I just don't understand the numbers that well in terms of small craft harbours. I'd be prepared to provide an answer back to the committee in a timely manner.

Mr. Bill Matthews: But you do understand the reason for my question. If we're supposed to be getting an additional $20 million for that fiscal year, and your estimated planned spending is $27 million less than what we're getting this year, then there's something radically out of whack there. I mean, that's what I'm leading up to, and I'd like an explanation for that.

Mr. James Wheelhouse: Duly noted.

The Chair: Mr. Wheelhouse has said that he will do so.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes. I just wanted to make sure my line of questioning was understood. Sometimes, I know, I can be confusing.

The Chair: No....

Mr. Bill Matthews: That's all I have to ask.

Thank you.

The Chair: Perhaps I can ask a couple of questions--five minutes, strictly.

I have a news release from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, entitled “Fisheries Projects Receive Funding Under National Voluntary Sector Initiative”. Where in table 3-1 is the national voluntary sector initiative?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: I'm not sure where that is reflected directly in this. My sense is that it is within the component of harbours, where we have harbour authorities that are voluntary in nature. A component of our budget is being allocated to work with the harbour authorities to address the issue of volunteer fatigue.

What I can do, subsequent to this meeting, is provide the committee with that number and where it rolls up into the estimates.

The Chair: All right, thank you.

The minister said in the news release:

This funding creates opportunities for voluntary sector organizations to contribute to public policy development. The involvement and participation of communities, individuals and volunteer groups in fisheries-related activities and projects will lead to increased interest in conserving and protecting our fisheries resources.

Then a significant amount of money is mentioned, or at least significant to me, $470,000, for various projects, none of which are harbours, I think.

I'm not saying this in a critical manner, but what I'm asking is, where is it in table 3-1? What was the total for the national voluntary sector initiative for the year ending yesterday? And what is it estimated to be for the upcoming year?

As well, in your opening remarks you specifically mentioned the oceans. You specifically mentioned, as your fifth point, “understanding of oceans and aquatic resources”. Your fourth point was “maritime commerce and ocean development”. Now, we have an Oceans Act, and it's supposed to be implemented. It hasn't been. Where in table 3-1 is there any money allocated for the implementation of the Oceans Act?

Â (1255)

Mr. James Wheelhouse: I think the response is that it's embedded in a couple of different areas as opposed to a specific line object item that says Oceans Act. Some of the assessment and some of the work that will be done transcends some of those boundaries.

The Chair: Okay. Can you identify for me, not necessarily today, specifically where the implementation of the Oceans Act is embedded, and how much is set aside for it in 2003-04?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: Yes, I can, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Where is human resources in table 3-1?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: It is part of the policy and internal services component.

The Chair: Yes, and I notice that policy and internal services--and I think this is fair to say--is the only heading that is forecast to rise. Indeed, it rises in 2005-06 significantly, while other headings either go down or remain static.

What is the thinking there? Why is that?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: I will have to provide a response to the committee on that. I do not know right now.

The Chair: All right, thank you.

I'm out of time.

Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: I have five minutes for a series of quick questions.

[English]

The Chair: You're the last questioner, Monsieur Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: In the department's report on plans and priorities, you state: “DFO will continue to advance Canada's international trade agenda“, and under that heading, you then state: “Opening markets in areas of key export interests for both goods and services“.

My question follows that of Mr. Wappel. How much money have you allocated to that in the past year and how much do you intend to spend for opening markets in key export areas for both goods and services? How much money have you dedicated to opening markets for seal products, for example?

Mr. James Wheelhouse: I did not hear the last part of your question.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: How much money have you dedicated, among other undertakings, to opening new export markets for seal products?

It is a very specific question. I agree that you may not have the answer, but I want to know how much money the department spends annually on opening new markets for our products, be it seal products or other Canadian made products.

Mr. James Wheelhouse: I do not have a specific answer in this regard, but I could advise the committee as soon as possible.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: We will wait for the answer.

I have two other very quick questions.

On table 6-5, on page 69, its states that you have $1.5 million for maintenance dredging services in the St. Lawrence shipping channel. You forecast revenues of $1.5 million all the way to 2005-06. But we learned this morning that the industry would no longer pay for this as of March 31.

It is the same situation for icebreaking services fees, for which you forecast an amount of $13.8 million. No agreement has been signed yet.

How can you put these amounts in your planned revenues when there is no agreement and it is practically impossible that these costs will not increase? In fact, what we are being told is not realistic, because this revenue is budgeted, but there is no agreement.

· (1300)

Mr. Alex Lakroni: This table reflects the objectives that have been established for the department in order to attain these revenue goals. It is mentioned in this document that there is a short fall in the realization of these revenues, and this is something the department has to deal with. As Mr. Wheelhouse has mentioned, this revenue dimension is a priority within the DAP, the resources alignment and realignment project, for a review of the department's overall strategy. The department intends to straighten out its realistic objectives regarding revenue realizations.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: When will you sign an agreement? In the end, that is my question, because in order to attain your objectives, you will have to sign an agreement. At the present time, it seems that no negotiation is possible. The industry totally rejects your previsions and categorically refuses to pay theses charges. I know that it is a difficult question and that it can also be somewhat political.

Mr. Alex Lakroni: I believe it would be speculative for us to go beyond the budgets that are being presented here. It would be advisable to ask that question to the person responsible for the Coast Guard.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Okay. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Wheelhouse and colleagues, I want to thank you for coming today. I hope you can see there's no question that there will be plenty of policy-related questions for the minister and the deputy minister in due course in the future. But I also hope you can see that our committee is very interested in specific questions as well, about specific areas. Particularly in view of certain comments made by certain people about what committees or members of Parliament have or have not done in the past with respect to estimates, and what they've seen or not seen, asked or not asked, I also hope you can appreciate that we are working hard to try to understand how you folks think on a daily basis; to try to read these; and to try to understand where things are coming from.

We're not trying to be confrontational, and I hope you haven't gotten that feeling. We hope that we'll be able to work with you and you'll be able to work with us to make the estimates more meaningful to members of Parliament each year. That's our purpose.

We look forward to seeing on Thursday any of you who come, as well as your colleagues. I'd certainly appreciate it if you could bring your experience today with our committee to their attention before they come so that they don't come apprehensively in any way.

Thank you very much. We appreciate the time.

The meeting is adjourned.