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, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, March 25, 2004

1115

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

Mr. Larry Murray (Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

1120

The Chair

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

Mr. Larry Murray

Mr. Loyola Hearn

1125

Mr. Larry Murray

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Larry Murray

1130

Commissioner John Adams (Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Chair

Mr. Larry Murray

Commr John Adams

Mr. Larry Murray

Commr John Adams

The Chair

Mr. George Da Pont (Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources Corporate Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

1135

The Chair

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

Mr. Larry Murray

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. George Da Pont

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. David Bevan (Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

1140

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Commr John Adams

The Chair

Mr. Larry Murray

The Chair

Mr. Larry Murray

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.)

Mr. Larry Murray

Commr John Adams

1145

Mr. Bob Wood

Commr John Adams

Mr. Bob Wood

Commr John Adams

Mr. Bob Wood

Commr John Adams

Mr. George Da Pont

The Chair

Commr John Adams

Mr. George Da Pont

Mr. Larry Murray

Mr. Bob Wood

1150

Mr. George Da Pont

Mr. Bob Wood

Commr John Adams

The Chair

Commr John Adams

Mr. George Da Pont

The Chair

Mr. George Da Pont

1155

The Chair

Mr. George Da Pont

The Chair

Mr. George Da Pont

The Chair

Mr. George Da Pont

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, CPC)

Mr. Larry Murray

Commr John Adams

1200

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. Larry Murray

1205

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Larry Murray

The Chair

Mr. Larry Murray

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.)

Mr. Larry Murray

1210

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Larry Murray

The Chair

Mr. Larry Murray

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Commr John Adams

The Chair

1215

Mr. Larry Murray

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. David Bevan

The Chair

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

Commr John Adams

Mr. Peter Stoffer

1220

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Commr John Adams

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Larry Murray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

1225

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Larry Murray

Mr. David Bevan

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Larry Murray

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Larry Murray

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. George Da Pont

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. George Da Pont

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. George Da Pont

Mr. Loyola Hearn

1230

Mr. George Da Pont

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. David Bevan

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

The Chair

Mr. Larry Murray

1235

The Chair

Commr John Adams

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Commr John Adams

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. George Da Pont

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. George Da Pont

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

1240

Mr. George Da Pont

The Chair

Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)

1245

1250

1255

The Chair

1300

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Hon. Geoff Regan

Mr. David Bevan

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Hon. Geoff Regan

Mr. Loyola Hearn

1305

Hon. Geoff Regan

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Hon. Geoff Regan

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Hon. Geoff Regan

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Hon. Geoff Regan

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Hon. Geoff Regan

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Hon. Geoff Regan

Mr. Loyola Hearn

1310

Hon. Geoff Regan

Mr. David Bevan

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Hon. Geoff Regan

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Hon. Geoff Regan

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Hon. Geoff Regan

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Hon. Geoff Regan

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

1315

Hon. Geoff Regan

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. David Bevan

Hon. Geoff Regan

The Chair

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

Hon. Geoff Regan

Mr. George Da Pont

Mr. Bill Matthews

1320

Hon. Geoff Regan

Mr. Larry Murray

Hon. Geoff Regan

Mr. Bill Matthews

1325

Hon. Geoff Regan

1330

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Hon. Geoff Regan

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Hon. Geoff Regan

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Hon. Geoff Regan

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Hon. Geoff Regan

1335

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Hon. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Hon. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Hon. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Hon. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Hon. Geoff Regan

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

NUMBER 007

3rd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, March 25, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1115)

[English]

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), we're considering the main estimates for 2004-05, votes 1, 5, and 10 under Fisheries and Oceans.

We have departmental officials today, and the minister will be appearing. Just so our colleagues and guests know how this is going to work, we will hear from the people who are here, who I will introduce in a moment, and we'll begin our questioning after they've made their presentations.

The minister is expected at about 12:30. When I see him come in the door, I'll adjourn the proceedings momentarily so he has an opportunity to find a seat, get his notes, and get himself settled. Then we'll call on the minister to make his opening remarks. After that we'll proceed with questioning accordingly.

I just want to remind everybody to restrict questions on policy until the minister is here and concentrate on questions pertaining directly to the estimates. Of course, we'll be carrying on with our study of the estimates next Tuesday as well.

Without further ado, let me introduce the people who are here from the department. We recognize many, if not all of them. They include Mr. Larry Murray, deputy minister; Jean-Claude Bouchard, associate deputy minister; George Da Pont, assistant deputy minister, human resources corporate services; John Adams, Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard; David Bevan, acting assistant deputy minister, fisheries management; and Robert Hamilton, director general, audit and evaluation directorate.

Isn't Wendy here?

Welcome, gentlemen and madam.

Mr. Murray, please proceed with your opening remarks.

Mr. Larry Murray (Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning. It's a pleasure to be here with my colleagues today to discuss the main estimates for Fisheries and Oceans Canada for the coming fiscal year and to field questions that you and the committee may have.

[Translation]

Over the next ten minutes, I would like to try to help address the concerns your committee expressed regarding the 2003-2004 estimates, explain the effects of the government-wide changes announced last December and, finally, provide a brief overview of the 2004-2005 main estimates.

I understand that your committee has expressed concerns regarding the level of detail offered in the 2003-2004 estimates documents. The guidelines for the main estimates are set by Treasury Board and so we have sent your letter and concerns directly there.

Our minister also shares your concerns and has asked us to work with Treasury Board to make the main estimates documents more relevant to committee needs. In the meantime, we have come today prepared to address your questions. And should your questions involve more detail than we have with us today, we have in-depth information on operational spending plans and priorities in our internal financial system. We would be happy to make this information available to you if you wish.

[English]

We would be delighted, as the minister's letter indicated, to provide whatever additional internal financial information the committee feels the need for.

Some of the changes announced in December have an effect on the structure of DFO. These changes include the Canadian Coast Guard becoming a special operating agency and various areas of the department being transferred to Transport Canada. The areas being transferred include the Office of Boating Safety, the navigable waters protection program, the Canada Shipping Act, and policies and regulations related to marine pollution.

It is important to note that the resource impacts of these changes have not been finalized and are therefore not reflected in the 2004-05 main estimates. It's the government's intent to table a revised set of main estimates later in the 2004-05 fiscal year. By tabling a revised set of main estimates, new and restructured organizations will have sufficient time to finalize resource discussions and develop their plans and priorities in time for Parliament to consider appropriation bills to authorize final spending.

Our counterparts at the Treasury Board Secretariat have also advised us that the reports on plans and priorities for DFO will be tabled in the fall of 2004, along with the reports of other departments that underwent reorganization.

The 2004-05 main estimates for DFO have grown slightly by $2.3 million relative to the 2003-04 main estimates. DFO is among the departments with the lowest percentage increase, at less than 1%, and is growing at a lower rate than the overall federal government, which has grown by nearly 6%.

[Translation]

Within the department, there is virtually no change in operating; there has been a moderate increase in capital and a more substantial decrease in grants and contribution spending.

As you can see, the operating vote has remained stable at the departmental level. Although there were increases in the operating vote for items such as collective bargaining and Species at Risk, these increases were offset by a planned decrease in the Fisheries Access Program.

[English]

There is also an increase of $52.8 million in the capital vote, which is largely related to a permanent increase in funding for the modernization of the Canadian Coast Guard capital, as announced in the 2003 federal budget, which was for $47.3 million per year.

The substantial decrease in grants and contributions of $62.6 million is in accordance with the implementation plan for the fisheries access program, related to the Marshall decision, and will vary in response to needs as agreements are signed with aboriginal groups.

You'll also note that statutory items have increased by $12 million for contributions to employee benefit plans. This increase is aligned with the departmental salary envelope.

The major single business line of the department is fisheries management, representing 20% of the department's resources. The Canadian Coast Guard, with five business lines, totals almost 35%.

We have listened to your concerns regarding more information on regional budgets. We'll be pleased to address any questions you may have today, bearing in mind that regional allocations are not yet finalized. Indeed, we've spent the first three days of this week in discussions on that area between ADMs and regional directors general.

A large portion of the resources actually held in the national capital region are for national programs, and these programs are either managed centrally, involving annual allocations to the regions, or managed in the regions, but are consolidated in the NCR for payment purposes. The allocations are dependent on investment plans that may vary from year to year. Some examples of these national programs are capital allocations, funding for aboriginal programs, our air surveillance budget, and species at risk.

Respendable revenues are presented in the main estimates by business line. The major sources of respendable revenue for the department are marine navigation service fees and ice-breaking service fees.

DFO, along with other departments, is facing the challenge of maintaining or improving overall operational effectiveness within existing resources. We are responding to these challenges by reducing spending on discretionary items, by internal reallocations, and by restraints on staffing.

Á (1120)

[Translation]

However, these measures are only short-term solutions and the department is currently developing longer-term solutions to these challenges through the departmental alignment and assessment program.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my overview of the main estimates for 2004-2005. We would now be pleased to respond to your questions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your remarks, Mr. Murray.

[English]

Just so you all know, in line with the new approach that has been suggested in Parliament and outside Parliament with respect to estimates, we're doing our best in this committee to try to get a handle on the estimates; how to read them; how to compare them; how to see whether things that were predicated actually came to pass and, if they did, whether they came to pass within the budgetary constraints that they were supposed to come to pass in.

We recognize that we're new at this. We hope we're moving forward in the correct direction, and we hope that with experience we'll be able to work with you to design the Fisheries and Oceans estimates in a way they can be read relatively quickly and be understood, and that intelligent questions can be asked on the estimates, which will hopefully benefit the department and Canadian taxpayers. That's our goal.

I guess this is our second attempt. Last time we ran into some problems, so we're hoping we'll be able to get a little bit more information this time around and perhaps have some more focused questions on some things.

We look forward to your cooperation in answering those questions.

With that little preamble, I will now turn to the fisheries critic for the Conservative Party of Canada, Mr. Hearn, for 10 minutes.

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

Let me welcome the people from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Perhaps, Mr. Chair, I should ask a question that you probably would like to ask, but seeing that you're so gracious, you would not.

They mentioned the letter at the top of the meeting. The chair of our committee, Mr. Wappel, sent the letter we're talking about requesting clarification on the estimates in September of 2003, and we got a reply back in March, exactly six months later.

Is that standard for the department to spend that much time in responding to a letter from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans?

Mr. Larry Murray: No, Mr. Chairman, that's a fair criticism, actually.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: I think we'll leave it at that, because I believe the point has been well made, and I'm sure we won't see that happen again.

You mentioned that the department--and this is a major concern for all of us and I'm sure a concern for you--had one of the lowest percentages of increases of any department in the budget. It's my understanding that your mandate keeps growing. It is not that the mandate of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is shrinking and the budget shrinks because you have nothing to spend it on. You know better than we do that within your department there are areas crying out for more expenditure.

We also understand that salaries last year--if my information is correct--exceeded the budget by some $50 million and therein might have given rise to the rumours that were kicking around about massive layoffs.

How are you going to be able to handle your department to do, not what you want to do, but to even do what has to be done within the budget framework you're given?

Á (1125)

Mr. Larry Murray: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll kick off an answer and others may wish to join in.

I mentioned in my remarks what we call the departmental review process going on, the departmental assessment and alignment project, and that project has been intended to come to grips with the answer to the question posed, which is an excellent question.

In the context of that process--and I would also say given the history of the department--we also have had to get our fiscal house in order, and our program and policy house in order, quite frankly, to be in a position to argue credibly for more resources, having gone as far as we could in the reallocation process.

In the context of the current review process, we have found $30 million in terms of belt tightening, “getting our house in order” issues. We have found about $21 million in staffing issues really focused on attrition, largely, which isn't a long-term solution, and we have found currently about $22 million in program measures--call it low-hanging fruit, I suppose--so we have found about $73 million through this process.

There are, however, a number of longer-term studies that are ongoing. The whole issue of a coast guard special operating agency is one where we're looking at that. We're having a detailed look at where we allocate money in science, how we do conservation and protection, moving forward with the ocean action plan, and the issue of marine security, which has arrived. With all of those we will strive to do what we can through reallocation, but I think we will be really very well positioned in a context of the upcoming expenditure review committee deliberations to indicate what we have done, what we can do through internal reallocation, and what I believe will be credible arguments for new money if the government wishes us to carry on doing the sorts of things we are doing.

I would say that in the context of the recent budget--without going into all the detail--we're hopeful to get some relief on ship time through the marine security money that was identified in the budget, and we did get some money for UNCLOS seabed mapping, given the UNCLOS decision. But I would say it's a work in progress, and at the moment we're doing the best we can through internal reallocation and positioning ourselves, I would say, for dialogue around the kinds of issues that fall out of the question as presented.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Mr. Chair, I certainly don't envy the job these people have, because when we look at things that are crying out for more money--research in particular, and so on--and when you're trying to hold on to what you have by moving around money, it has to be an onerous task.

You mention the special operations agency of the coast guard. We are going to be asking, I would think, a lot of questions on the coast guard because we've been spending some time on the coast guard study. I'd like a little more information on your plan for the agency and where you see the coast guard going, because you seem to be looking at it in a separate context.

I also understand that the small craft harbours program and the Canadian Hydrographic Service might be included in this new division. Is that factual? Where do you see the agency going, generally?

Mr. Larry Murray: Thanks very much. I'll just give a very short answer and then maybe ask John Adams to flesh it out.

Fundamentally, the change on December 12 enabled us, we believe, in the move to special operation agency, to focus the coast guard primarily on operational issues, with the policy issues going back to Transport Canada. So we think it can be more focused.

In terms of small craft harbours and the Canadian Hydrographic Service, as we've looked into the potential flexibilities around an SOA framework, we decided we would look at those two bits of our marine safety agenda in the same context. No decisions have been taken, but it's just if there is a way to do business better, smarter, cheaper on those two fronts through an SOA, we're prepared to look at it.

I would also say, before I hand off to John, that the minister is really looking forward to your report on the coast guard coming out. It's extremely important in terms of where we're at relative to your first question in terms of moving forward here.

John, do you want to...?

Á (1130)

Commissioner John Adams (Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Let me just add that in fact from the point of view of whither the coast guard, the direction from the government was fairly clear. The coast guard will be an SOA, but within the context of Fisheries and Oceans, reporting through the deputy minister to the minister.

What it really will enable us to seek, or to look and then perhaps seek, is to evaluate whether there are flexibilities that we could ask for with respect to perhaps financial matters, with respect to perhaps administrative matters, and even perhaps human resources matters, to see if those flexibilities will enable us to deliver, in a more cost-effective way, the services that we are expected to deliver to Canadians.

We are in the midst of doing that now. There is a bit of a process that one must go through, so we've pulled a team together to start looking at those aspects, to enable us to come up with a business case in fact as to what it is we think we would need to enable us to more effectively deliver the services to Canadians.

The second aspect of the SOA that I think is important, because it was part of the budget and has been something that's been discussed for quite some time, is whither the coast guard vis-à-vis marine security. So the flexibilities again of looking at the coast guard in that context are important with respect to the SOA. So that would be something else that we would be looking at, paying particular attention as we move forward with our work on the SOA.

I think I'd leave it at that for now, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Some of last year's capital budget for coast guard, from my information, had to be transferred into operations, and now there's a bit of a scramble to try to find make-up money from small craft harbours and perhaps other divisions. Is that factual? Are you that strapped that you have to try to move money around, at the expense perhaps of capital in this case? We have stories written about our boats rusting out and that there aren't enough to do the job that has to be done, etc.

The Chair: Mr. Murray, just so you know, there's a communications officer directly behind me. That person's job is to ensure that you are always on the record, and they will look after the button.

Mr. Larry Murray: I like pushing buttons. Sorry, Mr. Chairman.

Commr John Adams: He's a control fanatic.

Mr. Larry Murray: I'll kick off the answer and then I'll ask George and John to jump in.

We did indeed last year use $28.3 million, or something in that order of magnitude, with the permission of Treasury Board in an upfront manner to in fact enable us to stay within our means and to do some essential repair work to keep the fleet operating at sea. In fact, the focus last year was to continue to deliver service to Canadians as we got our house in order, and that in my view was an essential step to do that.

We're trying to do little to none of that this year. We're not at the end of our business planning process, but certainly that would be our very strong desire, and that $73 million I mentioned would be how we would try to avoid doing that again this year. But I can't swear that we will not have to do a little bit of that this year again, but certainly for reasons that you would well understand, it's not a long-term solution to anything.

John, do you want to comment?

Commr John Adams: The good news is that the vast majority of that capital money did in fact go into the fleet, but through operations. In other words, we used it for refit, which is an O and M expense as opposed to a capital expense. I think that probably explains why the Treasury Board was sympathetic in that regard. So it wasn't as if we were ignoring the fleet, but you're right, it was capital that went into operations and maintenance, but it was primarily refit for the fleet.

The Chair: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hearn.

Did you want to add something?

Mr. George Da Pont (Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources Corporate Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I was just going to add one additional point, Mr. Chairman.

In addition to that, there was an amount of money that did go this year to small craft harbours and some of the other capital programs because of potential lapses, because some of the projects did not go as quickly as envisioned. So what we're looking at now is the recipients of that money restoring an equivalent amount to the coast guard budget. I believe that is the answer, in part, to the reference you were making.

Á (1135)

[Translation]

The Chair: We will now move to the Bloc Québécois critic, Mr. Roy, for five minutes.

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

Thank you for being with us here today. One of my questions will deal with what has just been said about the creation of special operating agencies. You mentioned small harbours, for which a special operating agency can be created. From an administrative standpoint, what difference would that make? At the end of the day, the coast guard or that agency would still necessarily be dependent on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The only difference that I can see is that the coast guard would answer directly to the minister and the agency would answer directly to the minister instead of you. That is what it really comes down to, is it not?

Mr. Larry Murray: No, that is not the case and things are only at the study stage where small harbours are concerned. You mentioned the differences. I believe that for small harbours, control must stay at the regional level, since our regional directors have a better understanding of the real needs than people here in Ottawa. The question is how can we benefit from the advantages of a special operating agency and make sure that things are managed a little closer to the regions?

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: My second question concerns the overview of the main estimates. What I notice and what I want to understand more clearly is that in 2003-2004, for example, fisheries management was allocated $373 million, whereas the amount earmarked for that purpose for 2004-2005 is $295 million. There is quite a difference between those two amounts. What accounts for that difference? Why is there such a significant difference between the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 fisheries management programs in the estimates overviews that we have received?

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Da Pont will correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Chairman, but I believe that this difference is due merely to the fact that the Marshall program is coming to an end. So there is no funding for that program for next year. I believe that is the explanation for the difference between the two figures.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: And what you have actually done is to allocate the difference within the other budgets of the department.

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: There have been fluctuations in the other budgets as well, so that the overall difference is only two or three million dollars, as the deputy minister has mentioned.

[English]

Mr. George Da Pont: I'd like again to add one point.

That's the basic explanation for the difference. Part of the program was sunsetting, and in addition to that, we also reprofiled some money from this fiscal year to future fiscal years. That's tied in to how the money will be spent in terms of the agreements, so some of the money has actually been moved into future fiscal years. We can provide you more detail on that if you wish.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Yes.

What investments will still come from the Marshall plan, and for how many years? Will the money that has been committed over time come back to the department or remain within the department? You also talked about creating a reserve from those budgets, if I understand correctly.

[English]

Mr. David Bevan (Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): No, we have authority under Marshall to spend up to 2005-06, but that money will have to be moved from one year to the next. So it's flowed from the current budgets into the future in order to have the funds available for any spending that would be necessary as a result of our agreements with first nations in the future years.

But we don't have new sources of money coming into the department. It's the same money we had at the beginning of the process.

Á (1140)

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: If I might answer the last part of your question, no, the money does not remain within the department. This program sunsets in 2005-2006.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: So it is a kind of loss for the department.

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: Yes, exactly.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: That is what I wanted to understand.

I have another concern, which is lighthouses. The budget contained an announcement about decontamination of federal government sites. We know that all the lighthouse sites are contaminated. Is there any money in these estimates earmarked for decontaminating lighthouse sites this year? Are there plans to repair and hand off these lighthouses? We know that the public is increasingly concerned about lighthouses, both in Quebec and elsewhere. There are apparently 583 lighthouses, of which some 52 still have a lighthouse keeper. Is there any budget for this in the department's main estimates for next year?

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: I can give you a partial answer and I will ask my colleague, John Adams, to give you a response that may be more specific.

Yes, we have a list of all our sites, some of which are contaminated. We are in the process of identifying a list of priorities to figure out which ones need to be decontaminated first. We will certainly be trying to obtain funding for the decontamination of those sites on the list.

You also talked about handing off lighthouses. Yes, we are trying to transfer responsibility for some of these lighthouses. The difficulty that we often face is that the people who want to take possession of them sometimes want us to repair them and get them back in mint condition. As you can understand, our very limited budgets do not allow us to do much of that.

Commr John Adams: The only thing that I would add is that we need to work with our colleagues to get funding. There is some money, but it is like a competition, or nearly a contest, among the various departments that need funding to deal with this problem.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Roy.

Yes, Mr. Murray.

[Translation]

Mr. Larry Murray: If you like, we can share our plans for the contaminated sites with the committee.

[English]

The Chair: Just a minute. Are we agreed we want that information then? You'll provide it to us in due course?

Mr. Larry Murray: Yes, in less than six months.

The Chair: Well, we'll hold you to that.

Mr. Wood, for 10 minutes.

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As we're studying the coast guard, it's interesting that the capital spending for the coast guard since the amalgamation to DFO and the authorized spending are way out of line. Since you guys have taken over, the spending authorization is $53.5 million, compared to $39.5 million actual. The actual is way lower than the authorized. It seems to indicate, really, that actual spending by the coast guard has been well under budgeted approvals ever since the organization moved under the umbrella of DFO.

There's some speculation that perhaps DFO was reallocating the money away from the coast guard into the coffers of DFO. I guess I want you to shed some light on this matter for me.

Mr. Larry Murray: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It would be interesting actually, and I haven't done it, to look at coast guard capital spending prior to the merger and indeed capital spending within DFO prior to the merger. Certainly the issue of not adequately planning our capital expenditures so that we maximize the capital money we do have is a valid criticism. We have worked really hard in the last few years to correct that, and I think this year we're coming within $1 million or so of doing that. I'll ask John and George to comment on that.

But I wouldn't personally tie it to the merger. I would tie it to the fact that we haven't properly managed our capital expenditures. I believe we're now doing so to the best of our ability, and I think the results demonstrate that.

John, do you want to comment?

Commr John Adams: Let me, in fact, put a disclaimer to the accusation that it is the result of Fisheries and Oceans scooping, if you will, capital from the CCG. I wish I could say that, because then I could blame somebody else.

Á (1145)

Mr. Bob Wood: Where does it go? It didn't just disappear, did it?

Commr John Adams: A lot of it lapses, which is not a happy story, given that we have a capital shortfall, but the reality is that in some cases it lapses. One could argue that it lapses perhaps as a result of the merger, because of our inability to get our house sorted out over the five or six years that we've had to sort it out. We haven't been able to do that. This is not a happy admission, but it's the reality. It hasn't been scooped. In fact, in many cases we've relied on the department to take advantage of our lapses, so that it could do other things with the capital.

As I say, we've worked hard to correct that. It takes some time, because program review was done quickly and we probably did some things that didn't enable us to spend our capital effectively. That we've now corrected, and this year, happily, we will expend the money, including the additional capital we got this year as a result of the last budget. I think we're not on track, but that's the reality.

Mr. Bob Wood: Don't you feel that could be a little misleading? You have money, and now you're using it for something other than what it is actually set out to be. Is that not the case? Are you not misleading Parliament or people like myself and my colleagues?

Commr John Adams: No, we haven't misused it. Oh, you mean if we did other things with it?

Mr. Bob Wood: Yes.

Commr John Adams: That is the flexibility, fortunately, that is given to a department. We have to ask authority to do that, but better to do that than have it lapse.

Mr. George Da Pont: One of the things--

The Chair: Sorry, Mr. Da Pont, we'll get to you in a second.

I'm not quite sure if I understood this. I thought you said the money did lapse, and now you're saying it was used elsewhere and you have to ask authority for that.

Commr John Adams: I in fact said both. In some cases it lapsed and in some cases we asked authority to expend it on other projects. George could elaborate on that.

Mr. George Da Pont: Yes, it's a combination of both. One of the reasons that happens with some of the coast guard major capital projects, especially with vessels, is that it is a lot of money, and these projects have a variety of phases. So if you have a delay, a supplier doesn't deliver a particular piece that's needed or there's some change in shipyard repair time, it delays the project. As you know, capital money has to be spent in the fiscal year. Getting alignment between the actual work and the fiscal year has been a challenge, and we've worked hard to improve that, but that's also one of the things to consider in looking at creating the authorities for a special operating agency. We want to see if we can get flexibility on how we spend our capital money, so that for major projects, particularly big ones, it's not tied exclusively to the fiscal year and can be multi-year. Those are the sorts of things we are looking at in addition to the internal improvements in managing the projects themselves.

If there's a possibility of money lapsing toward the end of the year, if there are other areas where we can spend it, we would move it, but it would be generated by the inability to spend it in that fiscal year on the coast guard, not by a desire to move it to other projects.

Mr. Larry Murray: I would also say that we have changed our approach. Part of this is having enough capital projects moving forward that the delay in one doesn't mean you don't spend the money. In other words, if you have enough capital projects in train, with the right approval levels and ready to go, that's how you get to 100%. So we've had to come at this from the perspective of a skill set.

It is not that this moving of capital elsewhere has been taken lightly. As I said in response to one of the first questions, we did not do it this year without approval and without a very transparent process with Treasury Board. And Treasury Board itself, as I think you would be aware, has made it very clear that the practice of using capital money in other ways is not something that will be smiled upon or taken lightly in the future. Indeed, I'm not sure, if we did try to do it this year, we'd get approval. It's tightening up everywhere for the reasons you have outlined, because the money was voted for capital expenditures.

Mr. Bob Wood: With all respect, it's been six years in which you people have never got your authorized money. Surely, capital projects take a bit less than six years to come on stream--I would hope so. From 1997-98 to right now, you've never come even close to spending your authorized money, whereas before that, as somebody mentioned, three years before it came under DFO, these people were fairly on board. In one year, 1994-95, they used all their money, and they were very close in 1995-96 and 1994-95. But since it's come over to DFO, there seems to be a lapse: you have the money, but nobody is undertaking any capital projects.

Á (1150)

Mr. George Da Pont: I don't have the figures in front of me on the DFO or on the coast guard side of it, which I think is the focus of your question, because as a department overall, we've improved significantly and we've actually lapsed very small amounts of capital money in each of the last three or four years.

But I think you're right that in the expenditures on coast guard, for some of the reasons I explained, particularly in trying to manage the money, the major project, within the fiscal year, we've tried to improve the management of that a great deal. We've increased significantly the number of major capital projects we have within the coast guard. We've over-programmed so that money then, if it's lapsing in one project, can move to another project within the coast guard. I think we've made significant improvement on that in the past couple of years, and I think we have a fair bit of confidence that we will be spending almost all of the money for major capital allocated to the coast guard on the coast guard. But it has been a project management issue.

Mr. Bob Wood: A report to this committee stated that DFO, along with the coast guard, had planned to sell at least, I believe, three dozen vessels as early as 2000. I think to date we don't know how many, if any, of the vessels were sold. Do you have any information that would be helpful to the group on that issue?

If you did sell a product such as a ship, who is made aware of it and where does the money go? Does it show up as a credit somewhere in the department's budget, or how does it work?

Commr John Adams: I have to check on that number. I don't know where the figure of 30 came from.

We do have a number of vessels that have been declared surplus. We're not in the boat selling business. We declare them surplus, and then the responsible agency within government disposes of them. It's advertised on the open market to all and sundry, and the proceeds do come back to the department for use in our programs, in most cases.

There are exceptions. There are arrangements whereby, in some cases, small vessels--for example, a small lifeboat--could be transferred to first nations. The minister has the authority to do that. The other thing we occasionally do is transfer to our auxiliary some vessels that are surplus, if the vessel is in good shape and they desire to take it. Obviously then they would upgrade it and use it for their use.

That number of vessels would include all our vessels, not just, obviously, our watchkeeping vessels. As to how many have been disposed of, I'd have to get that information and provide it to you, Mr. Chair, if that's of interest to the committee.

The Chair: Yes, it is of interest.

Thank you, Mr. Wood.

Just to be clear, if the capital asset is sold--a ship, for example--does the money come back to the department, and where is it shown?

Commr John Adams: I'll leave that to the financial folks.

Mr. George Da Pont: It does come back in, but I'm not sure exactly where it's shown. I'm going to find out for you.

The Chair: All right. Would you find that out for us and let us know?

Before we go to the next questioner--just because I'm slow--you said, Mr. Da Pont, that the capital expenditure must be made in the year it's made. I think that's how you phrased it. Can you walk me through an example such as we want to buy an icebreaker?

Those are many, many million dollar expenditures, and I can't conceive that you could order an icebreaker on April 1 and get it by March 31 of the same year. So how could you purchase a capital asset like that within the year? What do you mean by that statement?

Mr. George Da Pont: It wouldn't apply to the example you gave. The example you gave would be a major crown purchase, and that would be governed by a completely separate authority that's set up. It wouldn't be covered in the capital budget we have.

The major capital projects may be one example on vessels. To extend significantly the life of a vessel, it requires at certain points of time a fair bit of work on various parts of the vessel. We would put that together as a major capital project. Sometimes it would be multi-year, so we would be planning on spending, say, $3 million or $4 million this year and maybe $2 million or $3 million the following year, and budget our money accordingly.

If there's a delay in some aspect this year, if we had budgeted $3 million for it and we can only spend $2 million because some aspect of it has been delayed, we can't automatically bump that into the next year. So we would be looking, obviously, at having to use that million dollars that would otherwise potentially lapse and put it to something else, and then find another million dollars next year to replenish.

Á (1155)

The Chair: I'm sorry, this is still confusing to me.

Let's just use an example. Let's just say that the coast guard wants to buy a new Zodiac vessel. I have no idea what they cost. Let's just say it costs $1 million. They order it on April 2 of this year.

I'm not talking about delivery now, but where is the $1 million for the purchase of that Zodiac shown?

Mr. George Da Pont: It would be in our capital plan. We would budget for it, and if it's not delivered this year, we couldn't automatically roll over that money to the following year, so we would have to look at some alternative use for that money. Then if it's not delivered in the fiscal year, we would pay for it with money for the next year.

The Chair: This is why? Is this because of Treasury Board guidelines?

Mr. George Da Pont: Yes.

The Chair: And do you agree with that? Does that make sense when you're purchasing items that would take over a year to deliver?

I mean, in any contract like that, there has to be some down payment; then there has to be some performance payment; then there has to be a delivery, a shake-down time, and then the final payment. And that's not going to be all within one fiscal year. That doesn't make sense

Mr. George Da Pont: That illustrates some of the issues that we try to plan and manage around.

As I said a little earlier, it's one of the fundamental benefits that we think we will be able to get in the authorities from setting up a special operating agency, where we hope to be able to get a different and more flexible set of authorities around those sorts of issues.

The Chair: Well, okay, I'm sorry. It's just totally confusing to me.

It seems to me to make sense that if you're buying a capital asset, you buy it in the year you order it, and you should be allowed to keep that money in your budget until you pay for it; and if for some reason you don't take delivery, or the product is no good, then you return it.

I see your hand up, Mr. Stoffer, but it's not your turn. You are down, sir, guaranteed.

Mr. Burton, for five minutes.

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, CPC): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a couple of comments, and then I guess I actually have three areas that I would like some clarification on in terms of actual funding for this year.

You've just said that you're looking to have the coast guard as a stand-alone agency, which may make some sense down the road. I guess my concern is that we're currently in the process of studying the coast guard and hopefully making some recommendations that will be seriously considered by the minister when we table them—which should be very shortly. Yet I'm almost hearing that you've already decided it's going to be a stand-alone agency within Fisheries, or is this just a concept at this point in time?

Mr. Larry Murray: The government direction on December 12 is that the coast guard will be a special operating agency within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, so it is government policy and has been government policy since the merger in 1995 that the coast guard is part of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

I would hasten to add that the teamwork approach within the department between the coast guard and the rest of the department has advanced over those years. Certainly, with the special operating agency status, part of what we will do there, in addition to the financial flexibilities, is to make clear the various relationships between regional directors general and the regional director of the coast guard, between the commissioner of the coast guard and RDGs, and others, so that in the context of moving to a special operating agency and the advantages inherent in it, we don't lose other progress that is underway with a one-team approach to the department.

So we would see a team continuing to emerge out the other end of this process, so that fisheries officers and others continue to be very comfortable working with the coast guard.

Commr John Adams: Might I also add to your question?

Frankly, the box has been defined; in other words, it will be a special operating agency within the context of Fisheries and Oceans. But what's inside that box has not been defined, and that's what I hope your report will help us with.

All we've done is formed a team to determine just how or what will go inside that box. So it's certainly not too late, and we're anxious to get the report as the deputy has said.

Â (1200)

Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you for those comments. It really doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy in terms of committee work, but I guess that's probably not unusual.

I respect that you have some direction and you have to follow that. I would hope that what we do come out with in the end is considered seriously by the minister, or the appropriate minister at the time.

I have three areas that I'm interested in specifically.

One is the oceans action plan, which was mentioned briefly. I would like to know the status of that and what kind of timeframe you have for developing that specific plan and tabling it.

I'm also interested in the west coast hatchery program. I have a great deal of difficulty getting numbers out of the overall estimates as to what kind of dollars are going where, when you get specific. What is this year's and the longer-term plan for the hatchery program on the west coast?

Also on aquaculture, Yves Bastien tabled a fairly comprehensive report. I'm curious as to DFO's longer-term approach to aquaculture. Is there funding in there to continue the program? Are you looking at a different approach? Where are we at with that?

Mr. Larry Murray: I'll deal with them as they were presented, Mr. Chairman.

In terms of the oceans action plan, the parliamentary secretary to the minister, the Honourable Shawn Murphy, was given leadership working with the minister on this one. Since December 12, there has been, I think, good progress. We have a draft outline of the oceans action plan, which at the moment is still a draft. We've had one deputy minister level meeting with 18 federal departments.

We certainly intend to roll this out beyond that shortly. It has actually built on a good bit of the work that has been done at a regional level, and so on. The components, at the moment, would be divided into four pieces.

One piece would be the international side, which would focus on things such as unclassified ratification, NAFO and our NAFO presence, and where we are going internationally.

The second phase might be defined as health of the oceans, where we would look at things like marine protected areas and other health of the oceans considerations that you could well be aware of.

The third is integrated oceans management, which is at various levels in various places in the country. It's where we would look at the work that's going on relative to modernizing our fisheries management, but it would probably also look at launching five or six pilots in various places across the country, where we would actually look at making integrated oceans management a reality among the various federal players, federal provincial players, communities, and stakeholders.

There are a number of places--Placentia Bay and beyond, in Newfoundland, the eastern Scotian shelf, and the north central coast of B.C. There are a number of places where there has been a whole bunch of work done by all the engaged stakeholders, where there's a lot of scope for more movement.

The fourth area would really be oceans, technology, and science. We're sorting out lead departments on all of that. I think it's a very positive movement. For much of what we do in the department, indeed some of the conversations around mergers and all of that within our own department, let alone across government and across provincial and federal authorities, when one positions all this in the context of an oceans action plan with three months, six months, two-year, and five-year deliverables, it really does bring integration into reality. Obviously, it needs to be public, transparent, and all of those things. We see this as actually a really constructive way to bring real integrated management to the oceans agenda.

On the second question on hatcheries, we're looking at our hatchery program in the context of the review I mentioned. We're also looking at it in the context of a number of issues that are coming at us around the wild salmon policy, the Species at Risk Act, and those kinds of things, and trying to take a scientific, long-term approach to that program.

I might ask David Bevan, or indeed Wendy, if she wants to leap into the fray, to add to that.

David, could you add to that before I move on to aquaculture?

Â (1205)

Mr. David Bevan: You asked about the budget for the salmon enhancement program on the west coast. That was the budget that was actually cut in the program review in 1995 by $3 million. That was taken then from the budget, but the implementation of the cuts was never approved, so that amount has been risk managed for the last number of years. So the budget is officially about $24 million; the expenditures are in the vicinity of $27 million. That's cash coming from other sources in the region and within fisheries management.

That's one reason there's such an interest in looking at the program. Moreover, there was a public consultation on the role of SEP relevant to the wild salmon policy we're trying to roll out this calendar year. That will be done in the context of the Species at Risk Act and not for other reasons.

Clearly, it's time now for a review of the salmon enhancement program. It was put in place to produce fish in the past, and now I think it's time to review how that's working. There have been distortions in certain runs as a result of the enhancement of some elements of the stock co-migrating with the weaker stocks. So it's time for a review, and that will be linked to the wild salmon policy and our response to the Species at Risk Act. That should be coming out in the course of the next year or so.

Mr. Larry Murray: Finally, on aquaculture, the committee asked for a number of officials to come here over the course of the two days, and Yves Bastien will actually be here next week. Certainly, the minister will be responding to Yves' report in the coming weeks.

From a departmental perspective, one result of the review process has been a recognition that we do have to give aquaculture a more visible and coherent position within the department, so I think you'll see that emerging. The other reality is that we have a very clear regulatory role for aquaculture, and we're working really hard to pursue that in a more effective, more timely, more transparent way across the country. In fact, the associate DM, Jean-Claude Bouchard, is leading that one personally. We think we're making progress, but obviously we have to ensure that we do strike the right balance with economic development and that what we're doing is scientifically valid.

So there's a lot of work going on in that area, and we'll have people here again next week to pursue that one at length if the committee wishes.

The Chair: Thank you.

When does Mr. Bastien's mandate end?

Mr. Larry Murray: The timing of the committee meeting on March 30 is very good, as his time officially ends on March 31.

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.): I'll start by coming off my colleague Mr. Burton's question on the salmon. We've certainly advocated for quite some time the establishment of an endowment fund for the Atlantic salmon, and it does have support around the table. Where does the department stand with the potential establishment of such a fund? Would it have an impact on the evaluation of the west coast endowment fund? Are there moneys that could be re-profiled to address the development of such a fund, or are we looking at new money to develop an opportunity like that?

Mr. Larry Murray: The minister and the department strongly support the concept of an Atlantic endowment fund. I was involved, the last time I was in the department, when the Pacific endowment fund was set up, and I think it's been a great success. There is some question about whether $30 million is adequate, depending on what's happening in the markets and so on. It really has nurtured as well a whole bunch of community involvement and given some ability at least to recognize the tremendous amount of volunteer work that goes on. In the context of the Species at Risk Act, with challenges on both coasts, that kind of fund and the work that falls out of it, I would say, would be invaluable as we wrestle with those things.

Such a fund would have to come from new money. We simply do not have the kind of money that would be required for the establishment of such a fund. But certainly, I think the minister is on record as strongly supporting that kind of investment at some stage of the game.

Â (1210)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: But most likely you're looking at new money?

Mr. Larry Murray: From my perspective, I would think it would have to come from a source of new money, based on my reading of our current fiscal situation within the department.

The Chair: Unless some of your capital expenditures don't close before the year-end.

Mr. Larry Murray: Well, actually, Mr. Chairman, it's an interesting point. The reality is that year-end money, in my opinion--and this is my personal opinion--for something like this is actually a really good source for investment.

If we were to do that with the Atlantic fund, we might want to top up the Pacific one as well. When we did the Pacific fund at $30 million it was in the context of an overall $400 million salmon.... It was like the post-TAGS east and a salmon program west. So although it was $30 million, it was in the context of a larger program. I'm not sure whether $30 million in isolation at the current time would cut it or not, but I'm not an expert in financial matters.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I have another question, and this has to do with some of the new technologies that are being employed. I guess there are examples in various business lines within the department, but when we look at the new technologies.... Of course, at one time shepherding was a noble profession, but with fences, shepherds lost their jobs.

I know Peter Stoffer would argue that had they been unionized they'd still have their jobs. Their new job would be to look after the fences.

A voice: Solidarity.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: When we look at things like lighthouses versus alternate navigational devices and when we look at surveillance and enforcement, we've made significant capital investments in various technologies. Where are we seeing the benefit? There was a comment made by one of the opposition members that we've gone from this many boats down to this many boats. How are we doing the same job?

What I'd like is a comment as to some of the dollars that have been invested. Are we seeing the payoff financially in terms of operational decreases, and how are we measuring the successes? Are we still getting the job done, or are we getting a better job done? How are we measuring the successes?

Commr John Adams: The answer to your question really is yes and yes. We are using technology wherever we can. The downside is it does occasionally impact on personnel, and we try to mitigate those to the maximum extent possible. Let me give you an example.

The development of materials suitable for buoys, for example, has enabled us to use those man-made materials and reduce the size of the buoy such that it can be placed literally by hand, as opposed to using a crane on a large ship. In the Maritimes region alone, by way of an example of the results of that, we've managed to reduce the number of ship hours to place buoys from 1,500 hours a year to 200 hours a year, just to give you an example. Does that mean therefore that 1,300 hours of ship time is lost? No. It means we can use that ship time to do other things. In fact, it has enabled us to take some ships out of service, but the mariners have been able to fill in in other spots where we've been able to use our other ships to their maximum advantage. In other words, we weren't tying them up for a couple of months of the year; of the 13 cycles we'd try to use 11 or 12 of the 13.

So that's an example. There are others, but rather than prolong it, that's one example, and that's how you measure it, basically, in that case.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cuzner.

Yes, Mr. Murray.

Â (1215)

Mr. Larry Murray: If I could just make two points on top of that, one is the example John used. It really is a win-win as well. For a community like Shelburne, it's contracted out now, and if they have a buoy go out, they replace it. Some local fisherman goes out and plunks it down the next day, as opposed to waiting three weeks for a coast guard buoy tender to show up. So it really is a win-win for communities, for everybody.

The second point I'd make is about the measurement question. I think the whole issue of how well we measure what we do is very much a work in progress. It needs a lot more attention in terms of even the business case, the first question here today. We're working on that. I would suspect the committee has a little dissatisfaction about how well we do that. We'll be taking another run at it in our report in September, but that whole area is one that we really do have to get a lot more effective at in reporting to Parliament, and also in measuring some of these things so that we can make good arguments on why the investment is in fact a good business case investment. So the whole issue of how well we measure what we do is an area that is a work in progress, with an awful long way to go.

The Chair: Okay, just a tiny supplementary one.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Finally, on where we're going with the seals, in 4VW, 1993, the biomass was in excess of 20,000 metric tonnes. Currently it's less than 6,000 metric tonnes.

Seals are one aspect of it. Obviously there has been a growing interest in trying to do something productive with the seals to increase the harvest, but when we're trying to develop markets for pelts and meat and whatever else, is it within the purview of DFO to help with that, or are we looking at other agencies to come in and help with developing those markets? Are we looking at ACOA partnership?

Mr. David Bevan: Market development would be other agencies. What we would like to do, though, is try to work with the proponents, the people who are trying to access grey seals in particular, to see if we can actually determine if there's a way to help them out with the harvest, etc.

We are right now doing a grey seal assessment. There will be the ability after that to set a total allowable catch that will be understood biologically. Then we could look at how that could actually be prosecuted

We are looking in the short term at proposals and trying to see if we could work with those individuals on those proposals. There are a number of challenges. As you're aware, grey seals are dispersed--if they're not on Sable Island, they're dispersed. How those would then be captured in an economic way and their products used--the meats, the hides, etc.--is a big challenge, but we would be prepared to look at those issues with them.

On the harp seals, we already have a three-year plan and a very good hunt that's underway now, and that does bring in a lot of money to coastal communities in Atlantic Canada.

We're also looking at an assessment on hooded seals in order to set a TAC that we would, again, understand biologically, and there's some consideration being put forward to change the regulations relevant to the younger hood seals to see if those could be harvested. That will take a bit of work, as it has to go back to cabinet and through regulatory change. It will not be without controversy, and we'll have to work our way through it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Cuzner, that's great, because I would not have defined seals as a tiny supplementary to performance reports, but you got them in there anyway.

We're going now to Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentations. I apologize for being late.

Mr. Adams, how many ships right now are parked in the Halifax harbour?

Commr John Adams: I'm sorry, I don't know right at this moment.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: There are 10, and they've been parked there for quite some time.

You just mentioned the reduction from 1,500 hours to 200 hours so they could do other things. Members of the coast guard union and a lot of people in the Halifax area say that's just to park them.

We were told repeatedly that there's no money for fuel, no money for crews to have these ships do what Canadians would like to see them do, such as fisheries patrols, coast guard patrols, etc.

You're indicating you would like to have our report on the coast guard and its future when we're done, but we've done lots of reports that we've given to the fisheries and oceans department. Although we have gotten responses, in my opinion, the reports have generally been ignored.

In this particular case, how can you satisfy the committee that you're going to take this report a lot more seriously than our other reports?

Â (1220)

The Chair: Which report, Mr. Stoffer? The one we haven't done yet?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The one we're about to finish. He says he's looking forward to it, but we've done lots of reports and we're still just as frustrated.

Commr John Adams: It depends how you define “ignored”. We've hardly ignored the reports. We've responded, and in many cases we've made changes. Perhaps they weren't all of the changes that everyone would want, but there was certainly acknowledgement of advice that we valued and we've worked on.

With respect to the report to come, again it will be considered along with other advice that we get from other sources and factored in to what comes out in the form of the special operating agency.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Sir, a few years ago, I asked Acting Commissioner Turner, I believe his name was, a question. He indicated that $200 million that was diverted from coast guard went into the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

We've been saying for quite some time--in fact many people within the coast guard have said this--that since the merger with DFO in 1995, all coast guard has been used for is as a cash cow for other DFO operations.

Is that assumption a fair statement to make, or was Mr. Turner talking out of line?

Mr. Larry Murray: Mr. Chairman, I can't comment on Mr. Turner's comments. But I can say, as someone who came into the department in 1997 when the coast guard coming out of program review had experienced a 30% to 35% reduction, that the department itself had experienced a 30% to 35% reduction. And on both sides, assumptions had been made during the merger about resources or capabilities that the other partner would bring to the table, which, when it all came together, didn't come to fruition.

It's an interesting concept or question whether it might have been wiser...and I'm not sure I would have thought of it this way, but had the reductions happened in 1995 and the merger in 1997, I think the mindset and some of the stories would be quite different, because the coming together then would have been on the basis of how we could make this work.

There are a whole bunch of wrong impressions on both sides of the equation post-merger, which I think we're coming out of now. But certainly I could probably march a whole bunch of fisheries officers in here who would have some equally compelling criticism about their perception of what the merger meant to them relative to the coast guard as the cash cow eating all the department's resources.

It's pretty difficult to figure out where reality is in all of this. What's important is that we come together as a team--and I think that's happening now--and that we move forward together. And that's what we're trying to do.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Murray, with all respect, that sounds great, but when you go out to the field you get a different response.

I remind the committee of the discussion we had with Mr. Henderson when we were on the west coast doing the MCTS report, when we asked him a very simple question, which was whether money was a problem--did he have adequate resources to do the job effectively. He said “Money is not a problem”. When we went to Victoria, Tofino, Ucluelet, and all those areas, the people were hopping mad saying “What the hell is that guy talking about? He doesn't know what he's talking about.”

So you get a manager of the coast guard saying one thing, and all the supervisors and personnel in the field say something completely different. I guess consistency is extremely important when you're trying to do a report and trying to assist the department in its recommendations. But we continually get one answer here, one answer from the regional directors and managers, and another one out in the field. I guess if anything, if there can be more consistency in the discussions and the statements we receive, it would be very helpful to this committee in doing a report.

That was just a statement. I have a question, though.

I have for you a fisheries officer in Digby, and he's willing to come to the committee to testify on this. He told the captain of a ship who was longlining for cod and haddock and brought up a string of hake that he had no other choice but to dump the 2,500 pounds of hake overboard. Most captains refuse to admit that. But he was told by the officer: “Do not bring the hake in under any circumstance or we'll shut the fishery down and you won't be able to fish”.

Is that standard policy within DFO? Because when the Canadian people find out.... What they hear about Atlantic Canada is that the fisheries are in a mess, we have to give them all this money to offset their losses, and the fish stocks are in a crisis. Yet we have officers telling captains of ships: “Do not bring that species in”.

Is that official policy of the department?

Â (1225)

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, the minister is going to be here if you want to ask a policy question. Before you came in I asked that policy questions be reserved for the minister. You're asking if it's government policy, but these are gentlemen who will implement whatever policy, whatever government says is to be done.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, we've had four fisheries ministers in the six years that I've been here. They're getting their advice from the department. They have to be. We have the departmental officials here. They would have to be advising the minister on responses to various questions.

I thought I'd do both.

The Chair: You can ask about advice, sure.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

Mr. Larry Murray: Mr. Chairman, I might ask Mr. Bevan to give an initial response. We could come back with probably a detailed response to that question next week, if that works for the committee.

Dave.

Mr. David Bevan: I can't really comment on the specifics because obviously it's the first time I've heard of that, but there are a number of fisheries where we have bycatch rules, bycatch provisions, and caps. If those are exceeded, the fishery will have to be closed down, and in southwest Nova Scotia in particular there are a lot of problems with mixed stocks being fished at the same time. You have cod, haddock, hake, cusk, and all sorts of things being brought up at the same time, each with a different level of abundance, with haddock being more abundant at this point in time and with cusk and hake both in some difficulty.

There are a number of rules put in place and enforced that may unfortunately in this case have led to some kind of motivation for inappropriate behaviour, and we have to try and get at those problems and try to find a way to work with fishermen to modify the behaviour and get the conservation objectives met.

That's one of the things that will be done by the FRCC. They're now looking not just at TAC advice, etc.; they're looking at more strategic work, and we're hopeful that in the future they'll be able to work with fishermen to help us understand how to set the rules up so we can avoid that kind of problem.

The Chair: Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the estimates you talk about $3.3 million for public security and anti-terrorism initiatives. Now, I know this ties in with other agencies. However, one of the things mentioned is the increased monitoring of vessel traffic through Canadian waters, and it's just recently we've had a number of people, particularly in Newfoundland, talking about the rumoured closures of some of the vessel traffic systems. Has any decision been made on that?

I believe that across the province there were talks of reducing them, maybe even having one, and then everything seemed to be put on hold. Is that just because there's an election coming? Has a final decision been made on that? I'm thinking particularly of the one in Placentia Bay, and Bill, you have one in Port aux Basques area also. Has any decision been made on what's going to happen to these--

Mr. Larry Murray: The minister has indicated there will be no closures of vessel traffic management system centres.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Period.

Mr. Larry Murray: Period, yes.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: We talk about money and we talk about small craft harbours in particular. How big is the minister's reserve?

Mr. George Da Pont: There's a reserve of $20 million that's generally set aside.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Now, that's much bigger than it was three years ago. Is that not true?

Mr. George Da Pont: I'm afraid I don't know. I would have to check that and get back to you. I know that's been the size of it the last couple of years; I don't know what it was before that.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: I've been told it was $10 million, then I believe they brought it down to $5 million, and then a recent minister increased it to $20 million. What's the total capital budget for small craft harbours?

Mr. George Da Pont: The total capital budget is $27 million, and there's $64 million in general operating and maintenance.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: In total it's $91 million, $27 million in capital, and the minister controls $20 million of it. Isn't that a little heavy to let the control...? When you have badly needed facilities, to have.... The best scenario--or worst scenario, maybe that's the way I should say it--is 25% strictly in political hands for them to play games with it? I know you can't comment on that; I'll withdraw that last comment. But isn't it very difficult to make decisions based on needs when it's being controlled by the minister?

Â (1230)

Mr. George Da Pont: The internal process we follow is that all projects across the country are ranked according to some set criteria, and then recommendations are put forward based on those project rankings for the full amount of the budget.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: And you and I both know that money isn't always put forward based upon the priorities, but that's the way it works and of course there is a future.

Mr. Chairman, we were talking about salmon and the concern about salmon hatcheries. Salmon stocks on the Atlantic coast seem to be rebuilding somewhat. At least this past year or so we've been seeing more salmon returning to the rivers, which is a tremendous sign.

However, one of the major concerns is that of poaching, and it doesn't matter who you talk to in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and certainly in Newfoundland and Labrador, people in the areas surrounding the great salmon rivers will all tell you horrific stories about poaching. Yet each year we're seeing further and further reductions in the guardian program. Not only do we not have our own department guardians any more--it's contracted out, I guess--each year we see cuts. Again, this past year we saw, I think, another week cut off the amount of time they spend on the rivers. How can we protect our stocks if we're not going to be vigilant on the rivers?

Mr. David Bevan: We've had problems in the past, obviously, and not just with poaching. The biggest problem we had was actually at-sea survival, and while there are some rivers in Atlantic Canada where we have seen some positive returns, that's not the case everywhere.

It's unfortunate that in those rivers where we have had good returns, the first thing that pops up is that the poaching efforts go up, and that's created quite a challenge. We have to look at how we manage the enforcement of the regulations in these rivers, and we need to work in partnerships because we can't do it all.

There have been successful attempts in a number of areas to put in place watershed committees that are self-funded, etc., and they have made a lot of good moves to get control over activities in those watersheds, not just for poaching but also for habitat, etc. It's been a bit of a challenge in other areas where people are reluctant to have any involvement in terms of financial involvement in the watersheds and are asking government to do it all. Well, we're doing the best we can with what we have, but I think there is a role for communities and interested parties to take some more action on those watersheds, and we're hopefully going to be able to move in that direction.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hearn.

Monsieur Roy, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We discussed the coast guard when you came before the committee last year, and I would like to come back to it now. At that time, you mentioned a very serious problem to us. Given the organizational culture of the coast guard, I would say that things were not operating properly.

You told us that almost every region had its own way of presenting reports and administering its services.

What is the situation today? Has anything changed? Will it be possible to establish an organizational culture that will make it possible for coast guard authorities to obtain accurate information, on expenditures, for example?

[English]

The Chair: Commissioner, before you answer that, Mr. Murray, did you want to add something to the previous answer?

Mr. Larry Murray: Yes, I do just have a quick one. Our people in the background passed up a detailed answer to the previous question on the small craft harbours reserve: in 1999-2000, $5 million; 2000-01, $5 million; 2001-02, $10 million; 2002-03, $20 million; and 2003-04, $20 million. And the current minister has asked for a detailed briefing on how we allocate funding for small craft harbours, Mr. Chairman.

Â (1235)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Commissioner.

[Translation]

Commr John Adams: Mr. Roy, I am very pleased to be able to tell you that the deputy minister made the decision a few months ago to change the way in which the coast guard operates. He decided that the regional directors would report directly to me.

In any case, I am pleased to report that we are now addressing the situation to make the organization nationally run, which is to say in a cooperative manner.

Of course, we cannot change everything instantly. It will take some time. However, I am pleased that within a few months we will have a national coast guard, that is, a national organization that will allow us to resolve the situation that you mentioned.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Will improving the way the coast guard is run produce cost savings? We were talking earlier about procurement. One of the main problems with respect to procurement is probably that there is no standardization in the system.

Commr John Adams: We will see, of course, but I am sure that cost savings will be one of the results.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you.

I would like to come back to a question that Loyola Hearn asked earlier about small craft harbours. I would really like to know about the department's plan and which harbours have priority right now. If the situation is the same as for the lighthouses, would it be possible to provide that information to the committee, with a breakdown by region? I know that there are harbours right now that are being assessed and I would like to know what the department's timetable is for that. Are they assessed once a year? Are all small craft harbours assessed once a year, or do you wait until there are serious problems before going in?

Right now, certain small craft harbours have very serious problems. I understand that the department does not have much money, but every time people contact the department, they are told that the assessment was done some time ago, that the department will have to go back to see, that the report cannot be provided to them, etc.

[English]

Mr. George Da Pont: We try hard to be very proactive in the evaluations, but quite frankly we still have about 1,200 harbours across the country, so obviously we don't necessarily get to evaluating them at the frequency we would like. We have tried very hard to get some standardized criteria against which all harbour requirements can be assessed, with safety getting the most weight.

On the allocation of funding to projects, we try to adjust it so it falls to those that are in the greatest need of repair. We try to allocate the money as fairly as we can within that context.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: I am sorry for interrupting you, but you have not answered my question. You said that you are trying to assess the thousand or so harbours that you have. I want to know whether you do an assessment every year, every two years, every three years or every five years.

[English]

Mr. George Da Pont: I don't know, sir. I'll have to check and get back to you with that.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: It is important to understand that the situation in the east, for example, in Newfoundland and Quebec, is not the same as in British Columbia. That is important to understand. At the end of the winter, there are very few harbours in good repair in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence. I think that they need to be assessed every year, since there are problems every spring with winter damage, and every fall with the high tides.

What I want to know is whether the harbours in Quebec are being assessed adequately and whether the department has the necessary staff to do that work. You say that you cannot tell me if these harbours are assessed every year, but I would like to know whether you feel that you have sufficient staff to do this, in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, for example, and I would like to know what is done with the information that you collect. Some communities use those harbours and want to be able to get information from the department about the shape the harbours are in, but the department refuses to give it to them. Is my question clear?

Â (1240)

Mr. George Da Pont: I know that we have enough people, but I will give a more completer answer to your question next week.

[English]

The Chair: What we're looking for is the departmental methodology on how small craft harbours are evaluated, and the frequency with which they are evaluated.

We see the minister here. Welcome, minister.

We'll take a break so he can get settled, and then we'll get right into it.

Â (1240)

Â (1243)

The Chair: I would like to reconvene the meeting.

I welcome to our committee the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Geoff Regan, on his first appearance here. We look forward to your remarks.

I've read a release that you're going to be making a few announcements, so we look forward to hearing about them from you. I know the committee members have some questions for you.

Again, welcome. The floor is yours.

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

Good afternoon, colleagues.

[Translation]

Good afternoon, everyone.

[English]

It's a pleasure today to join you to discuss the future of Canada's fisheries and oceans resources, and how the government will meet its objectives in the years ahead.

I'm pleased today to have with me my deputy minister, Larry Murray, and the other officials you've already met and have been talking to for the last while. They'll be assisting me in answering your questions, as they have been doing for the last while. Of course, I was in cabinet.

As you say, this is my first time appearing before the committee. I want to begin by thanking each of you for your dedication to Canada's fisheries and oceans. I'm aware that this committee does very good work. It's valuable to me, and I consider the work of your committee to be important in helping the department and me, as minister, to do our jobs.

With over 85% of DFO's staff in the regions, there is strong provincial and local interest in the department's activities, as you all well know. The oceans, fisheries, and other aquatic resources are important to Canadians for many reasons. They are a crucial component of the ecosystem on which we all depend. They're a source of employment and sustenance for hundreds of small communities, including aboriginal communities. They are important as a maritime highway to the rest of the world.

Your committee has a long history of providing valuable advice to the minister and the department. Of course, your recent reports on the Fraser River salmon fishery, foreign overfishing, and aquaculture have been insightful and helpful.

I understand you're currently studying the Canadian Coast Guard. Without question, it is a vitally important national institution. I look forward to your report, and am confident that our collective work will lead to a stronger coast guard for all Canadians.

Revitalizing the coast guard, modernizing fisheries governance, and the oceans action plan announced in the throne speech are key elements of the government's oceans agenda. Time and again, the Prime Minister has voiced the wish to more fully engage the communities, provinces, and aboriginal peoples. We want to apply this engagement to the fisheries, and more specifically to how we manage our oceans and inland waters.

Â (1245)

[Translation]

And I have already begun by meeting with industry groups, provincial ministers and many others around the country. Too many feel that decisions are not timely, that they have been treated unfairly and that their fishing plan should be reopened.

[English]

Therefore, an important goal for me will be to develop a process for access and allocations that is clear, fair, transparent, and involves input from resource users and other interests.

I want to begin by telling you that at the basis of all my decisions is a commitment to sustainable development, to ensuring that economic opportunities are supported, while conserving and protecting the marine environment and its living resources. That is absolutely fundamental to our work.

I believe the department is well placed to deliver on sustainable development, given the range of legislation, programs, and services at its disposal. The focus of my comments this afternoon will be mainly the Atlantic fisheries, but similar concerns about access and allocation, conservation, and how decisions are made exist on the west coast. We're working with the Province of British Columbia to address those concerns. After all, modern fisheries management practices on all coasts are an integral component of Canada's oceans action agenda.

Atlantic Canada's fisheries and oceans sector contributes billions of dollars to our economy, regionally and nationally. In 2003 we saw the seafood industry demonstrate once again strong performance in international markets. The value of Atlantic Canadian fish and seafood exports totalled $3.5 billion last year. Nationally, of course, it was $4.5 billion.

Despite this success, challenges remain in how we manage them, including threats to conservation, a lack of stability in access and allocations, and a planning and decision-making process that often doesn't include those closest to the fishery.

[Translation]

A shared vision of the fishery is critical to meeting these challenges and ensuring long-term sustainability of the resource. The last significant vision and policy framework was released by Roméo LeBlanc almost 30 years ago. Many things have changed since then in the fishery and in government.

[English]

To build consensus around a renewed vision for the Atlantic fisheries, the Atlantic fisheries policy review was launched in 1999, as you well know. It is my pleasure today to announce the policy framework for the management of fisheries on Canada's Atlantic coast, the document that I hope you see before you. This is the culmination of comments and recommendations offered by hundreds of participants during consultations throughout Atlantic Canada, Quebec, and Nunavut over the past five years.

Â (1250)

[Translation]

The review process included consultations with your committee, provincial and territorial governments, aboriginal groups, the fishing industry and others with an interest in the fisheries. It is the most extensive public consultation process every undertaken by DFO.

[English]

The provinces have referred to the AFPR, the Atlantic fisheries policy review, as one of the most positive examples of federal-provincial cooperation. Consultations included four rounds of extensive citizen engagement. Of course, participants, as they are wont to do in the fishery, never shied away from voicing their concerns.

Among the things we heard was a deep attachment to fishing traditions and historical precedence, but also broad support for changes in the way we manage fisheries. Change is needed to promote long-term, economically sustainable resources and an economically viable industry. Change should respect aboriginal and treaty rights and processes that government itself has put in place for modernizing Atlantic treaties.

This framework sets out a shared vision for the fishery, supported by clear objectives to lead us there. Together, we will build a fishery with better conservation outcomes, greater industry self-reliance, stability in accessing allocations, and a modern governance regime based on shared stewardship, including open and transparent decision-making processes.

In this process, we are committed to an independent and viable fleet of inshore fishers who own and operate their own boats. This is a key item for inshore fishers and for the provinces. We are committed in the longer term to more stable sharing arrangements. We are committed to multi-year fisheries management plans focused on conservation and risk management. We are committed to policies to promote the viability and self-reliance of the industry.

This framework represents the culmination of the first phase of fisheries renewal efforts, but the hard work and commitment does not end here. This will require a pace of change that is acceptable to all involved. It also means continued cooperation and dialogue with the provinces and Nunavut, communities, aboriginal groups, and individuals.

As we look to change behaviour and move from the culture of prosecution to one of shared stewardship, we'll need to make changes to the 136-year-old Fisheries Act. An example of one area where we see room for a significant change is in creating administrative sanctions for violations of the act. We're prepared to make fundamental changes. We believe this is the way to greater stability in this area.

[Translation]

Decisions will become more predictable and acceptable for resource users, and fleets will be able to foresee that they will benefit from their investments in conservation and responsible fishing. This policy framework was not created in isolation. It is part of my larger mandate to lead in the sustainable development of all of Canada's ocean resources.

[English]

Mr. Chairman, to create a sustainable fishery, we must break the cycle of uncertainty. Spring is a pivotal time of year for announcing Atlantic fisheries management plans, as you well know. Last year, as in previous years, some of these announcements resulted in controversy and confrontation.

[Translation]

The committee has requested earlier announcements of fishing plans to give harvesters and processors more certainty. Your advice makes sense.

[English]

Therefore, I am pleased to announce the stabilization of existing sharing arrangements in 29 of 30 east coast fisheries for 2004. The total allowable catch levels and other conservation measures will be worked out during normal consultation processes.

The early announcement of sharing arrangements of these plans will allow resource users to plan their business operations with more certainty. I've heard that all over the place. I've travelled the country, and I've heard that constantly. It also demonstrates that we are determined to break with the past and move forward with a progressive, coherent, and modernized fisheries management system.

The department will concentrate on longer-term transformation of fisheries management. This transformation will focus on conservation, self-reliance, economic viability, and shared stewardships with provinces and resource users. It will also allow the officials time to develop a process, in consultation with stakeholders, for longer-term stabilization.

Since my appointment in December, I've said that the new policy framework on the east coast is only worth while if fisheries beyond the 200-mile limit are also managed properly and enforced. Last week I announced a new multi-year strategy to get us there. This strategy includes increasing monitoring action and enhances our role in NAFO. It includes an increase of at-sea surveillance, with an additional $17.5 million for at-sea patrols over the next five years, a new five-and-a-half-year $51-million air surveillance contract with Provincial Airlines Limited in St. John's, and a commitment from the Department of National Defence to work with DFO to enhance information sharing from aerial surveillance and VMS.

I can tell you also that last week, when the Prime Minister met with the European Union, he raised the issue of foreign overfishing on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap as a grave concern, and the response he had was favourable. Therefore, we're going to be talking to them more, very quickly, to further this discussion and to see if we can get movement quickly. If not, we reserve all options.

We are open to all options, as I made clear in my announcement last week in St. John's. We want to develop the use of the UNFA tools. We are increasing surveillance. We are going to be out there, and we are going to use all the options at our disposal.

Increasingly, more accurate information will ensure a strong and credible picture of non-compliance, which is an important aspect of this. This is evidence that will allow us to support additional action on the high seas and enhance interventions diplomatically, as we've seen in the last week.

We're moving toward renewed governance within Canada, and we'll be pursuing an agenda of change on the high seas. Our objective is very clear: we want to reduce foreign overfishing by addressing non-compliance in a more strategic way, and we want to seek a governance regime that will ensure the rebuilding of straddling fish stocks. Again, your advice has helped to guide DFO's thinking and actions.

Â (1255)

[Translation]

I am confident that this new and comprehensive strategy will give Canada everything it needs to significantly reduce foreign overfishing beyond our 200-mile limit.

[English]

The Prime Minister has asked all cabinet members to shift resources from lower to higher priorities to pay for these kinds of important initiatives and other emerging national priorities. Let me assure you that as we move forward, the department will continue to seek ways to improve the services it delivers to Canadians.

[Translation]

Honourable colleagues, since becoming minister in December, I have travelled across the country to meet with stakeholders and various levels of government to hear what they had to say.

And it is quite clear to me that we all want the same thing—a strong, sustainable, competitive and high-value seafood industry.

[English]

We want an industry where business and government work together on shared priorities, one where we deal with challenges in a cooperative manner, and one that continues to make an important contribution to our communities. The initiatives I have outlined today will go a long way toward doing exactly that.

I am committed, as is my department, to working with you in the months ahead to make the most of our precious resources that are available to us, while protecting them for future generations. Your dedication to the long-term sustainability of the fisheries is essential.

Thank you again for the opportunity to be here. I am now happy to have a discussion with you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister. Thank you for those announcements.

As you well know, this committee has had a long and serious concern...particularly with the issue of the straddling stocks on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and Flemish Cap. We wish you every success in your negotiations with our NAFO partners, and we hope we've given you an additional arrow for the quiver. I'm sure that you and the Prime Minister will negotiate in the best interests of the future of the world.

Thank you for your brief remarks. I just have to let you know that we have approximately 30 minutes left, I understand. I'd like to give ten minutes to Mr. Hearn, five minutes to Monsieur Roy, ten minutes to Mr. Matthews, and five minutes to Mr. Stoffer, and this will include the answers. So I'd appreciate it if we could be brief, or otherwise we're going to lose the time.

Mr. Hearn, away you go.

· (1300)

Mr. Loyola Hearn: What about yourself?

The Chair: Well, I won't have time, as he has to leave.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Again, I'd like to thank the minister for coming here.

I must say that I'm heartened somewhat by his remarks. At least he's showing an interest in some topics that certainly affect us greatly in our province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I'm sure Canadians generally.

You mentioned that we've recently given him a new arrow for his quiver. Perhaps we might give him the arrow in the quiver if he doesn't do something about it.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

An hon. member: Boo.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: However, having said that, I'd like to start first with the minister's announcements today.

He mentioned a decision to maintain the existing sharing arrangements in 29 of the 30 Atlantic fisheries for this coming year. Will he tell us what the other fishery was, and why there was a change?

Hon. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, in fact it's 29 of 32. Pardon me for misspeaking earlier.

Mr. Bevan is now going to explain what the other three are.

Mr. David Bevan: One of the others is the crab fishing area 17 in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. There are currently negotiations underway with respect to the long-term sharing of that resource, a joint project agreement, etc. So that is not something that would be constant.

We have some increase in the shrimp fishing area 1 that's adjacent to Nunavut waters. That's going to be subject to further consultation.

I believe the other is.... I'll just have to check on that, because some of it changed in the last little while, and I'll have to get back to you on it.

Gulf cod, of course, is subject to considerations by the FRCC. While that is an issue that is not yet resolved, the sharing of that resource would not change relative to the 2002 fishery. Should there be a fishery, the sharing of that would not be altered, as per the 2002 fishery, on either the northern or southern gulf cod fisheries.

The Chair: That question strikes me, Mr. Hearn, like the child who brings home a report card with nine A's and two B's, and the parent says “What's with the two B's?”

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Absolutely. But sometimes things are left out that could pose problems down the road. In this case, I understand.

For the northern cod fishery in 2J3KL area, has any decision been made whether or not there will be a fishery there this year?

Hon. Geoff Regan: Yes. In fact, we should have had a news release earlier this week indicating that there would not be a fishery in that area. Now we are looking at the question of bycatch, but in terms of directed fisheries, no.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: In the background around preserving the independence of the inshore fleet in Atlantic Canada, a couple of things here really stick out: “... the department aims to strengthen and modernize existing policies, to keep pace with the evolution of fisheries on Canada’s East Coast and protect the independence of the inshore fleet.”

A little further down, at the bottom of the third paragraph, it says: “The fleet separation policy also applies to this fleet”--and that's the 65 and under--“and separates the harvesting and processing sectors. It does not recommend the issuance of new inshore licences to corporations, including processing companies.”

And just above that it says that the fishing vessels under 65 require that the licence holder personally fish the licence. That has to be the biggest joke ever put on paper, because anyone involved in the fishery, certainly in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I presume it's true in the other Atlantic provinces, knows that most--maybe I shouldn't say the word “most”--the large portion of the boats under 65 are owned by processors, are controlled completely by processors. The people who own the licence, quite often, are not the ones fishing.

When are we going to clearly enunciate the policy to the point where the person who owns the licence and supposedly owns the boat can tell the processor to go wherever and can sell his fish wherever he chooses? It's like the old system of years ago when you went cap in hand to the merchant. People owed their souls. Everybody knows this, it's clear cut. So how are we going to clean up this mess that exists in the under-65 fleet?

· (1305)

Hon. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, first, if my colleague is suggesting that in fact the majority of boats in the Atlantic region of inshore fishing boats are owned by companies or the processing companies, I don't think that's accurate. Just to be clear, there are a number, certainly there are, and that's a concern.

I think the point we're making very clear in this statement, this framework, is that we think the inshore fishery should be owner-operated, and we want to move in that direction.

As you know, this whole issue of trust agreements is one that has been a challenge, obviously, for the department, because we aren't informed of those trust agreements, as you know. They're done privately and often secretly. You hear about things, and you see things happen, and you think there's something going on. But I think that moving on this is very important, and first of all making a very clear statement that we support that in the future we will not be moving toward a system where we're going to allow processing companies to hold the licences and so forth. That's an important point.

I wonder if the deputy wants to add something to that, or Mr. Bevan, rather.

Mr. David Bevan: Yes.

Obviously there's been a problem with the price of licences on the open market, the commercial market. It's not something people can take to the bank and mortgage; therefore there has been a challenge in getting the capital together for the younger generation to get into the fishery. I think that will be a challenge we'll have to face as we move ahead with implementing all of the policies.

We will have to look at this, and we have talked to the fishing industry about options. We're exploring those options, and we'll be coming out for further discussions with the provinces and with the fishing industry as to how we might get around that problem. It will be a challenge that is going to be dealt with through a regulation, through a policy change, or through some other means. But obviously the intention is to preserve the independence, and we have to change the policies or the regulations that govern the way licences are exchanged and how they're controlled if we're going to get at the root cause of this involvement of processors in the fishing industry.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Mr. Chair, I certainly agree with that assessment, and I would support initiatives along that line, because, as I mentioned, it is in a real mess.

In the budget I noticed an amount of money identified for fishery closures. Is there a plan to have some kind of a further retirement program?

Hon. Geoff Regan: I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to in terms of the budget.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: I haven't got it here right now, but I believe there was a small amount, maybe $3 million, that was set aside--

Hon. Geoff Regan: How much?

Mr. Loyola Hearn: I think it was only $3 million--

Hon. Geoff Regan: For fishery closures?

Mr. Loyola Hearn: I think it refers to fishery closures. Let me just get around it by asking--

Hon. Geoff Regan: The next question is whether it's a tail end of something that already existed. That's possible.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Is there any plan for further closures, or retirement plans in relation to fishery closures?

Hon. Geoff Regan: No, not at the moment.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: In the northern shrimp fishery, a lot of concern has been raised about the size of these shrimp from a number of people who are fishing. First, they say there is plenty of shrimp, and it will be difficult to catch it all. They are wondering why the quota hasn't been increased in 3-L. One of the other concerns is that the shrimp seems to be smaller than before. Is that because of overpopulation, and is there a concern that we could have too much shrimp? Do we have the signs that will determine...? I'm thinking of the caribou herd that roam my own area; they let it grow and grow and bragged about the increase in the herd. It overpopulated and really killed itself off. Could we see something like that happen to shrimp?

· (1310)

Hon. Geoff Regan: That's the kind of detailed question that Mr. Bevan is so good at answering.

Mr. David Bevan: Thank you, Minister.

Clearly, there is a huge population of shrimp there. We don't have the science to be able to quantify it with the greatest degree of precision. It's not like counting caribou, where you have thousands. There are billions and billions of shrimp out there. They are maturing quicker at a smaller age, and it's very difficult for us to have a complete grasp of the ecosystem to know whether or not they are stressed out because of lack of food, or whether it's a normal change, or what.

With respect to the TAC, the difficulty in that fishery is that it's a large fishery, obviously, in the Canadian context, and it's larger in the global context. We have market problems, and the challenge is to try to bring stability, allow the industry to try to find a way to get their costs in control, get the values up to the maximum permitted by the markets. Rather than to increase the TAC and have people lose more money because of losing money per tonne, it's preferable to do that, to provide that stability and allow people the chance to work out with the processing sectors, and with the provincial government's attempts to rationalize there, and work out a way to bring the industry back on a profitable footing.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here, Minister. It is my turn to thank you.

I was looking at the wording used in your announcements. I must tell you that I am a bit obsessed about the quality of French used by people and I have a lot of difficulty with some of the wording here. What do you mean by modalités when you talk about fisheries-sharing arrangements being stabilized?

Hon. Geoff Regan: It means that in area 12, for example, the 15 per cent that was allocated to the international fishery will be maintained. Overall sharing arrangements will be maintained.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: So the sharing arrangements that were already in place will be maintained. I do not believe that sharing arrangements have been decided on for area 7, and you are negotiating, if I understand correctly.

Hon. Geoff Regan: Yes.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Are you expecting to provide us with an answer on that quite soon?

Hon. Geoff Regan: Absolutely.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: You see, I get telephone calls every day about that issue from Sainte-Anne-des-Monts and elsewhere. Those are the people who are affected.

I also would like to know something about quotas. When you talk about allocating multi-year quotas, are you going to allow any leeway in what you give the fisheries? Since I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and fisheries critic for the Bloc Québécois, I have been asking for multi-year quotas, that is, a multi-year allocation so that people know where they are going.

What I want to know is whether you have put any limits on this, whether you have kept some leeway in order to avoid having to reduce quotas one year and then raise them another year.

Hon. Geoff Regan: The management plans that we will be maintaining really concern sharing arrangements, but the total authorized catch has to change every year. This is a scientific issue, obviously.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: What I was suggesting—and I want to come back to this—is having a minimum quota that would enable the minister to keep a margin of, say, 25% each year, which could allow for fluctuations. Right now, we have to deal with the same problem. We will never know what the future holds. It might be necessary to close a certain fishery, as was done in the case of cod, because too much quota was allocated in the past or there were environmental problems.

So nothing is changing. All that you are saying today is that the sharing arrangements will be stabilized, but people will have no better idea of what quota they will get from one year to the next. That is what you are telling me.

· (1315)

Hon. Geoff Regan: Mr. Bevan would like to answer you on that.

As I said, the quotas will go up or down on the basis of what is in the ocean.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: But you are not providing for any leeway or setting a basis for the quotas. For example, in the case of shrimp, it would be possible to say that you will have so many thousand tonnes every year, plus or minus a certain percentage, depending on the state of the resource.

Mr. David Bevan: We would have to consult the fishers on this, obviously. From time to time, they want to change the percentage of crab they can harvest each year, for example. For other species, however, such as cod off the south coast of Newfoundland, there are regulations in place. There is a process for changing the total allowable catch. There has to be a significant change in the science in order for TACs to be increased or decreased.

For example, three years ago, we established a total allowable catch for 3Ps cod off Newfoundland, and that TAC is the same for this year and perhaps for next year as well.

Hon. Geoff Regan: One of the things that we have heard everywhere is that the industry wants more certainty and would like the plans to be announced ahead of time, as you said earlier. That is what we are trying to do.

[English]

The Chair: Merci.

Mr. Matthews.

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

Minister and officials, thank you for coming this morning.

I didn't get a chance to question your officials before you got here, so I may have to overlap a couple of things.

Very quickly, on small craft harbours, we had a discussion this morning about the coast guard and why money doesn't get spent, and lapses, and all this other stuff, but in the past few years some of the small craft harbours project approvals haven't come until August. I think last year it was somewhere around the middle of August. Can you or your officials inform the committee when we might expect some approvals on small craft harbours?

It's an issue I deal with. I've said it so many times: I deal with harbours more than anything else, because I guess every community I represent has a port or a harbour and there's some problem with it. So when can we expect some movement on small craft harbours approvals?

Hon. Geoff Regan: I think this is an important point and an important question, and that's something I've certainly been aware of as an MP in the last number of years.

I know there are things that happen during the year. Things change in terms of the conditions of wharves and other facilities in harbours.

Mr. Da Pont, who is of course in charge of finance, is who I think you're really directing your question to, perhaps, and I think he's anxious to tell you what the answer is.

Mr. George Da Pont: We have had some difficulty. You're absolutely right, there have been cases where we've had project approvals quite late. We've been working very hard to improve that. We're aiming to and will have a package of recommendations to the minister for approval by mid-April at the latest. That will be earlier than we've achieved in quite some time--at the minister's request. So I'm expecting we will improve the pattern there significantly.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I thank you for that. That's good news. Quite often the lists come up from the regions and it seems to take an ungodly length of time to get it dealt with. I know sometimes you do have to rely on engineering and other expertise from some other departments. I understand that fully. So I thank you for that. If it can be made a bit earlier, I would certainly appreciate it, as I'm sure all members would.

Minister, I listened closely to what you had to say to us this morning. You talked about sustainable development and everything else. Earlier this morning, the member for St. John's West talked about the river guardian program. It's a very important program. It's very important for the sustainability of the Atlantic salmon particularly. We have seen some increases in returns to the rivers in the last number of years.

This morning we talked about a potential Atlantic salmon endowment fund and so on. If we're really sincere about sustainable development and rebuilding the Atlantic salmon stocks, to nickel-and-dime a river guardian program to death at the expense of the resource seems somewhat contradictory. So I guess I want to say to you this morning, and to your officials, don't nickel-and-dime that program to death, because you'll have a devastating impact on a resource that seems to be coming back.

The other big issue related to increasing the Atlantic salmon population is that we have to deal with the seals waiting at the mouth of the salmon rivers for lunch. It's as simple as that. They're there waiting for lunch. What's the point of trying to rebuild an Atlantic salmon resource so that we can fatten up the seals and let them overpopulate and so on? That's the damn reality of it all.

So we have two issues here. One, we have to get the seals out of the mouths of the salmon rivers, and two, we need a dependable, reliable river guardian program for a sufficient length of time. Those people who partake in illegal activity of poaching and netting the rivers know the hour that the river guardian is going on the river and they know the hour that you're going to stop the river guardian program. If it's one or two or three weeks earlier than other years, not as long, then they'll take advantage of that.

I'd like to hear your officials respond to that, because it's very disconcerting.

· (1320)

Hon. Geoff Regan: Before they do, let me say that this is something that's been raised with me a number of times, the river guardian program. I can tell you that while we think it's an important program....

By the way, I don't think it's just seals that are waiting to catch the salmon sometimes, unfortunately. As you know, there are poachers as well. That's what the river guardian program in part is all about.

One of the things we have found is that the stewardship programs that we've seen in the last couple of years have been very effective, and in some places more effective, than the river guardian program. What's been suggested to me by some is, look, you have to have a transition from one to the other, and you have to have a way to not just end one but try to start another gradually. You have to have a period of...and we're looking at the possibility of doing that. We also have some habitat programs in some of the rivers where we think these might have an impact.

As I say, the seals certainly are there, and that's an issue. I'm interested in your advice. Obviously there is a seal harvest every year, and I know you have some strong views on what the size of that harvest should be. But we can talk some more about how that could be done. I guess you did want the officials to answer, so I'll let them.

Mr. Larry Murray: I think the minister has covered it. Certainly in the Newfoundland and Labrador region, as you're well aware, we're working on it. Wayne Follett and the team have had a couple of very successful joint stewardship community things that have had much more significant and positive impacts than we thought they would.

So we're looking at this, and we're not going to walk away from it lightly, for sure.

Hon. Geoff Regan: What we in fact have heard is that some people may not be out there with huge nets taking all kinds of salmon, but some people may go out figuring if they're out, it's okay to take a few, not really understanding the impact on or the situation with the resource, and why they shouldn't be doing that.

Oddly enough, these stewardship programs have been very successful in creating a decrease in that activity. It's a bit surprising, really. It's kind of counterintuitive, and not what you'd expect. But it's worked pretty well.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Thank you very much for that. I'm very much aware that the water management groups have done some wonderful things for us. I have a number of them in the riding. But quite often what you find is that, again, they're nickel-and-dimed to death. They don't have the resources to do the work we sort of ask them to get involved and engaged in that would help us with the rebuilding of the resource. So I'm very much aware of the merits and the benefits of them, and I applaud them.

It's quite interesting, Minister, but I was looking at an article, from your own neck of the woods, on the grey seal impact on the cod and so on down your way. I don't wish anything bad on you or your people, but if it causes you and your officials to look a little differently at the seal problem, then I'm somewhat relieved. Mr. Bevan and I, and others, have had this discussion for the last couple of years, trying to get the seal herd population dealt with. I don't need to repeat this for you, but if 7 million or 8 million seals are eating a metric tonne of fish resources a year, it's quite devastating for our resources.

I represent an area of the province where their way of life is being destroyed. Their communities were founded on the sea, and we don't have fish resources to bring to the communities to process. Some proposals have come forward to deal with this situation. Quite often we talk about market, we talk about this, and we talk something else.

In this article here, Minister, which I'm sure you've read, it references what has happened, as our colleague from Cape Breton mentioned this morning, in 4VW. There the biomass was estimated to be 20,000 metric tonnes in 1993. After ten years of denying people the right to fish in that area, it's now estimated to be less than 6,000.

Well, that's the same story we have in 2J3KL. It's the same story we have in the northern gulf fishery. We stopped our people from fishing because we thought the biomass would rebuild. But what's happened? Our fishermen and plant workers can no longer make a living and the biomass has decreased.

So there obviously are other important factors besides commercial fishing, and one of them, of course, is the seal population. Now, for some reason, and a lot of times it's excuses, we're not willing to deal with that issue. We have economic opportunities where people are willing to harvest the seals, fully utilize the animal. And guess what; in the meantime, they'd employ some people, people who have markets, who can get rid of the finished product, whether it be fur or meat or whatever. But for some reason, and I have to tell you this, there's a resistance inside your department to deal with it.

The former Prime Minister asked me to get proposals. I got them. I brought them to the former minister, and to some of the people who are here. I tried to bring it back again. With all due respect to some of your officials, they have come to see me in the last number of weeks to talk about this again. But there just seems to be this problem that we're afraid to deal with it.

We don't mind our people going to hell in a basket. We don't mind them having to go to Fort McMurray and other places to work, and shutting down our communities, but we don't want to deal with these eight million seals sitting outside our salmon rivers and our communities today waiting for lunch.

I think you can tell that this issue means a lot to me. I say to you and your officials that you've stopped the people from fishing, but if you're ever going to see a regeneration and a rebuilding of those fish stocks, you've got to deal with seals. Anything big and environmental out in that ocean, we have little control over. I'm not saying that's not a problem.

So I'd like to hear your response on that, because I think it's time we dealt with it. And just looking at the situation in your neck of the woods, I think you're getting more interested in dealing with it as well.

· (1325)

Hon. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, there's no question that Mr. Matthews has been tenacious and forceful on this issue for a long time, and continues to be.

I can tell you that we're looking at the seal harvest. We're looking at the question of the grey seals around Nova Scotia, as well as the harp and hooded seals that we see more of in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have to keep in mind a number of things, as you know, and there are a number of things that we have to watch out for on this issue. We've seen, in the last ten years, the relative inability of groups like the IFAW to have much impact on this issue. I don't think any of us want to create an opportunity for them to have a new impact and create new problems for us in our fishery and for our fish to get into other markets, for example, as they did some years ago.

At the same time, one of the things that we have to keep in mind when we're looking at what level the seal harvest should be is that it's important that we have a harvest that's at a level that will be sustainable for the harvesters. In other words, we want to control the size of the herd, without question. If the herd comes down to a point where it no longer sustains the size of harvest that we currently have, that's a problem too. It's too low. In other words, it affects those people who rely for their livelihoods, or part of their livelihoods, on the seal harvest.

Now, as you know, counting seals is a very expensive prospect. That's why it happens every five years. In fact, next year the department will be conducting its next seal count, which means, of course, that a plane flies over the ice floes and the seal herds and takes pictures. Then someone with a clicker, apparently, actually counts the little dots on the ice, which is remarkable.

It's interesting how they use infrared. If you have, for instance, harp seal pups that are white on white ice, it's pretty hard to see them from an airplane. That's why they use infrared photographs. They can obviously point them out from the heat. That's how they count them, and it takes quite a while. One of the difficulties here is in getting an exact idea today, four years since the last count, of where we are with those.

Mr. Chair, I recognize my colleague's concerns about the impact of seals on the fishery. I know that there's some debate on this. I tend to be inclined toward his view. We are looking at this question in relation to the grey seals as well. We're working on that and the department is examining these questions.

· (1330)

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Stoffer.

I have two questions that, if they aren't asked by Mr. Stoffer, I'd like to ask you before you leave, Minister.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, for appearing along with your officials.

I have so many questions to ask, but not enough time.

Very simply, does this policy thing that you've announced today invoke the precautionary principle?

Hon. Geoff Regan: This policy is based on conservation and sustainable development.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Would that be a yes?

Hon. Geoff Regan: That's a yes, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The reason I say that is, very clearly, Mr. Matthews is correct about seals and the element of what they're causing in terms of our fish stocks. But something else causes a concern for fish stocks, and that's what it says on page 2 with the words “a safe, healthy, productive water and aquatic ecosystem”. I agree with that.

On page 11, on the principle, it says “the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, on behalf of Canadians, retains authority for the habitat”. Yet when I wrote to the previous minister about the concerns of seismic testing off the west coast of Cape Breton, the science department within DFO expressed concerns about what seismic testing may do to the fragile precious stocks that you've indicated. There were concerns raised within their own department that more tests and more studies need to be done before we proceed with seismic testing.

The response was that DFO advises the Canada and Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. They gave the permit and the seismic testing proceeded. If this document says that you have to have a healthy aquatic system and that you retain the right for the habitat, how can DFO allow, under any circumstances, another authority, like the Canada Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, the authority to issue licences for seismic testing in an area that the department itself says is very fragile?

The reason I bring that up is because these same concerns are going to be raised very soon between the Queen Charlotte Islands and the mainland of British Columbia. The fishermen and their communities have a right to know who has the final authority for the protection of fish stocks and their habitat. In this book, it says that it's you. I'd like to clarify that please.

Hon. Geoff Regan: First of all, it's the government's view that our oceans are important for a number of reasons and that it is possible to have different uses, as we already do, in occupying the oceans and sharing them. At the same time, as you are aware, the Offshore Petroleum Board in Nova Scotia, for example, does have jurisdiction over this matter. The department makes its views known on such things.

Meanwhile, we are doing further research. The fact that there were the seismic tests off Chéticamp, for example, in Cape Breton gave us the opportunity to do research. As you know, there was no mortality found as a result of those tests, but we have ongoing examination. I can tell you that, for example, there were crabs that were collected by the department in advance of the testing, and then one group was put down in the testing area as well as one in a different area so you could compare.

Some of the past testing hadn't done quite the same thing; it was important to do this kind of testing to get a real examination of the impact of the seismic testing in that area, and we are examining the longer-term impact on those crabs of that testing. It is important to note there was no mortality at the time, but it's also still important to know what the longer-term impacts are.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Minister, I have a captain, as I said previously in the committee, who went out longlining for cod and haddock. He brought up a string of 2,500 pounds of hake, and he was told by a fisheries officer not to bring it in. Is dumping of fish stocks a policy of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?

Hon. Geoff Regan: First of all, I think that all colleagues on this committee understand very well what the issue of dead discards at sea is. For example, let's say it was cod. Let's say we said that if you had a 50% bycatch of cod, that would be okay. You could bring them in and not have to discard them at all. Then what would happen is that people would direct for that. This is an issue on which it is easy to suggest that the department's being irresponsible in some way when in fact we know the practical reality is that if you do otherwise, people will actually direct for these species that otherwise they have to discard. If they have to discard them, they're not going to direct for them. That's important.

It's unfortunate, and it's very frustrating for people to see or hear about any fish being discarded at sea, but let's also remember that when a fish goes to the bottom, it remains part of the biosphere. It remains part of the ecosystem and feeds other fish. Of course, fish do die in the sea on their own, as we know, and that plays a role in the ecosystem.

· (1335)

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Very briefly, my last comment is that I thank you very much for your support for the Atlantic salmon endowment fund. Unfortunately, it wasn't in the budget, so anything you could do prior to the election to announce that will happen will be a great thing for Atlantic Canada.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Geoff Regan: Peter knows that I'm a long-time supporter of the Sackville Rivers Association--it goes through both of our neighbouring ridings--and that I have a strong affinity for the work they and other groups like that do, and I appreciate it very much.

The Chair: Minister, there are two quick questions from me and one quick question from Mr. Cuzner, and I do mean quick.

The commissioner for aquaculture development's term ends on March 31. What are you doing about that? Will there be a new commissioner of aquaculture? If not, who in DFO is going to be looking after the aquaculture file?

Hon. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chair, I'll be making an announcement. You're aware of the report of the commissioner. We're making an announcement in terms of our response to that report on Tuesday.

The Chair: That's the best you can do for me today?

Hon. Geoff Regan: That's the best for now. You'll have to be patient.

The Chair: Question number two concerns the departmental assessment and alignment project, DAAP, and the expenditure and management review process, EMR. They were supposed to be completed by the end of 2003. Are they complete? If they are, where are they? If they aren't, why not?

Hon. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, the DAAP will be completed by next month. Because of the changes in the expenditure review started after December 12, obviously, the EMR has been rolled into that process. That's a new process and we have to wait and see what impact that has, but in terms of the DAAP, it will be completed next month.

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: When do you anticipate initial feedback on some of the science that was done during the seismic testing off the west coast of Cape Breton?

Hon. Geoff Regan: Wendy Watson-Wright, who is our ADM science, will be back here, as you know, next week, and she'll bring you an answer then.

The Chair: Minister, thank you very much. I appreciate it. I know it was quick, but we got some answers to some questions, and we applaud you in your work.

The meeting is adjourned.