PDF Version

April

19, 2016

RESOURCE

COMMITTEE

The

Committee met at 9 a.m. in the Assembly Chamber.

CLERK (Hammond):

Good morning.

My name

is Kim Hammond; I'm the Committee Clerk for this morning. This is the Resource

Committee and this morning we're looking at Fisheries and Aquaculture.

The

first order of business is to nominate a Chair. Are there any nominations from

the floor?

MR. BRAGG:

I nominate Brian Warr.

CLERK:

Thank you.

Are

there any further nominations from the floor?

Are

there any further nominations from the floor?

There

being no further nominations, Mr. Warr is acclaimed Chair. You may take your

seat.

CHAIR (Warr):

Good morning all.

Our

second order of business is to nominate our Vice-Chair.

MR. BRAGG:

I nominate Mr. Kevin

Parsons.

CHAIR:

Mr. Kevin Parsons has been

nominated.

Any

further nominations?

Any

further nominations?

declare Kevin Parsons Vice-Chair.

Before

we start, just a few housekeeping notes and I'll just ask you to bear with me.

Although I've chaired meetings before, it's the first time chairing one here.

The

first thing I think we'll do is probably have the introduction of our Committee

Members. If we could start with

MR. BRAGG:

Derrick Bragg, MHA for Fogo

Island Cape Freels.

MR. DEAN:

Jerry Dean, MHA for

Exploits.

MR. FINN:

John Finn, MHA for

Stephenville Port au Port.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Pam Parsons, MHA for Harbour

Grace Port de Grave.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Kevin Parsons, MHA for Cape

St. Francis.

MS. DRODGE:

Megan Drodge, Researcher, Official Opposition caucus.

MS. MICHAEL:

Lorraine Michael, MHA for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MR. MORGAN:

Ivan Morgan, Researcher, NDP caucus.

CHAIR:

Good morning, Minister.

MR. CROCKER:

Good morning.

Minister Steve Crocker.

MR. MEANEY:

Brian Meaney, ADM Responsible for Aquaculture, Seafood Marketing and Industry

Support Services.

MR. LEWIS:

David Lewis, Deputy Minister.

MS. WISEMAN:

Wanda Wiseman, Acting ADM for Fisheries.

MS. LUNDRIGAN:

Kate Lundrigan, Fisheries Financial Planning Supervisor.

MR. IVIMEY:

Philip Ivimey, Departmental Controller.

MS. COLMAN-SADD:

Vanessa Colman-Sadd, Director of Communications.

MR. WORTHMAN:

Matthew Worthman, Minister Crocker's Executive Assistant.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Again,

under housekeeping, we want to make sure that when you're speaking, besides

probably the minister and the Committee Members, if any of the staff are

speaking please announce your name and just see a tally light, just for the

communications centre.

we'll get started. Will the Clerk please call the first subhead?

CLERK:

1.1.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.1.01 carry?

Minister, you have 15 minutes for your opening remarks.

MR. CROCKER:

Okay.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

Just

briefly, I'm not going to have a

preamble, but I will welcome everybody this

morning and congratulate you as the Chair and Mr. Parsons as the Vice-Chair.

We'll

get right into it, and we'll answer what questions are posed. If there are any

issues that arise, we can certainly get back to you as fast as we can.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I

previously discussed with the minister, I'll go through the line-by-line items a

little bit afterwards, but I have some questions first about specifics to the

budget. I'm going to ask those first and there will be some in between.

Hopefully, if there's anything you can't answer, you can get back to me. That's

no problem whatsoever.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I just want to talk about,

first a few things that are not in the budget or if they are perhaps you can

tell me where they are and whatnot. The Fisheries Technology and New

Opportunities Program, has this been eliminated?

MR. CROCKER:

The FTNOP?

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes.

MR. CROCKER:

FTNOP has been rolled into

our new Seafood Innovation and Transition Program. Just to elaborate a little,

FTNOP, the terms were changed a little. FTNOP had $1 million last year. It was

set to expire. So we brought in a new program where we will focus, not wholly,

but we will look at transition as more of a part of that program. FTNOP didn't

look at transition, so there will be more of a guide towards transition.

MR. K. PARSONS:

What program is that?

MR. CROCKER:

It's the Seafood Innovation

and Transition Program.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

MR. CROCKER:

It's a $2 million fund.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. Under the $2 million

okay, that's good.

Marine

fisheries research, what commitment is in the budget for fisheries research?

MR. CROCKER:

The commitment to CFER is there. There were some reductions. There were some

savings with regard to the vessel. There were some further administrative

savings. We will continue on with CFER.

We've

actually started conversations with the federal government to move them back

into filling the void they left, the previous federal administration, as they

moved money out of research. The federal government, in their budget, did

announce additional funding for research. We're confident they'll fill the void

that was left.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. When we look at the

research vessel, Celtic Explorer , is

that eliminated?

MR. CROCKER:

No, the

Celtic Explorer is due here within

the next few days.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

MR. CROCKER:

There was an agreement

reached with their Marine Institute of Ireland to lower the fees, the cost

associated with the boat this year. So we were able to get the

Explorer here at a lower cost.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. Is it going to do

basically the same research that it did over the last number of years?

MR. CROCKER:

Yes. Actually, this year I

think the Explorer is going to be in

3Ps. Is that right Dave?

MR. LEWIS:

Yeah.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, the research this year

will be in 3Ps because of the challenges we face with cod in 3Ps.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

The $2

million for the Seafood Innovation and Transition Program, what's in this

funding? What does it do?

MR. CROCKER:

Well, we're hoping this

funding will assist harvesters, processors and academics in looking, not wholly,

but looking at opportunities as we move towards rebounding groundfish. So there

will be a lens given to it to help with the transition back to groundfish.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Is there any money in this

fund for exploring marketing in the fishery? Is that what (inaudible)

MR. CROCKER:

Yes. If a proponent, a

harvester came in and said I need this technology, as an example, to help with

marketing of my product, then absolutely that is something that would be

considered in the funding proposals.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

there a separate marketing fund or anything in the Department of Fisheries to

set up I'm just looking at the groundfish coming back, cod and everything else

and talking to most of the harvesters, this year they're looking at an increase

in their quotas. The biggest problem they have is where we are going to get rid

of the fish and where it is going to market. As you know, we don't have a lot of

companies doing cod and there is a huge problem when the cod does come back of

where we are going to sell it and how we're going to market it and what markets

(inaudible)

MR. CROCKER:

That, again, will be part of

the transition program. Just recently, the FFAW and group of processors were

able to announce a new body. They're going to look at that because you're

absolutely correct; there is a possibility this year there will be substantially

more groundfish but this is why we want to take I guess when you look at

marketing, the beginning of marketing is how that product is harvested. So an

investment in new technology that would help in product quality is an important

part of marketing.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

The

other thing I look at with the cod fishery in particular because I was

involved in the cod fishery for years myself, and I know it's coming back. I've

been on the water myself and just saw the difference over the last number of

years and talked with the fishermen. We have a problem with processing,

obviously, that we don't have the people that can fillet the fish anymore like

they used to and they're not there anymore. So it's going to take innovation and

it's going to take huge investments in processing plants and stuff like this.

I'm

just worried that we're not going to be ready and wondering what government is

doing, are we working with industry, are we working with the unions, what are we

doing to make sure that when the fishery does come back because it's probably

the brightest spot in our economy right now, and I think we have to be ready. So

I'm just wondering where we're to and are we doing anything there.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, I couldn't agree with

you more on the role that needs to be played. Again, I'll go back to the FFAW

and those processors two Fridays ago it will be two weeks this coming Friday.

They actually came together as, I guess, processors and union representing

harvesters. They came together on their own and actually we weren't part of

that. That was by design, so they came together. After their announcement on

that Friday, we were invited to come to the table. We will be going forward at

that table.

Again,

back to your remark about what we can do. We're hoping and it's the investment

we can make through the new program that will help some harvesters and

processors get their foot in the door to some new technologies that can

ultimately help with product quality. Any marketing, the first thing we need

and you'll get full agreement from harvesters and processors and the union that

in order to market our product, we have to make sure we're harvesting that

product in the best way so the product going to the market is A-1.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I agree 100 per cent.

The

other thing is and I wasn't going to go here, actually, but while I'm here I'm

going to say it. With CETA, when CETA was first announced and I looked at CETA I

thought it was a great investment and it was an investment that we needed to do

the millions of dollars that is needed for the industry. What are we doing

with the feds? Are we giving up on CETA or are we just a simple question. We

need their investment in this fishery, because it's going to take mega dollars

to do this. So where are to with that?

MR. CROCKER:

That's a negotiation that's

obviously being handled by the minister responsible for trade.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes.

MR. CROCKER:

But we are back at that

table. Every opportunity we have and I've engaged with Minister Tootoo on it,

and Minister Foote as well, and the other MPs from this province and you are

correct. The fisheries fund right now would go a long ways in helping us in this

transition. So obviously it's an ongoing file, and we will continue to pursue

it.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

In the

budget I saw some processing fees.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Can you explain them to me,

and who pays them?

MR. CROCKER:

The processor.

MR. K. PARSONS:

The processor (inaudible).

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, the processor

MR. K. PARSONS:

I just saw there were fees

for all different species and stuff like that. When you talk about so much a

ton, how does that work? Give me an example on crab. So you got

MR. CROCKER:

The example on crab is, as a

department so every processor in the province reports on a weekly basis?

OFFICIAL:

(Inaudible.)

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, they would report to

DFA on a weekly basis of their production levels, and this fee would be applied.

So for crab, for an example, it's $5 a ton.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Five dollars a ton, yes.

MR. CROCKER:

So it is a charge that was

there in the past. When we looked at these fees, we were very conscious of the

situation for example, you will find there's no fee on shrimp. We've seen the

issues around shrimp.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Shrimp, yes.

MR. CROCKER:

And it's very much minimized

in some cases. You will find groundfish at 50 cents a ton.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes.

MR. CROCKER:

And a lot of this is cost

recovery for our workers and DFA employees who do the inspections and are at the

plants.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Can you give me an example

I'm looking at $5 a ton and it doesn't seem like a whole lot of money. How much

money is involved in the crab industry?

MR. CROCKER:

The overall, over every

species throughout the industry, is $200,000.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, $200,000.

MR. CROCKER:

Approximately, obviously

that depends on

MR. K. PARSONS:

We look at crab this year,

crab is a great price for the harvesters and so the $5 a ton is not going to

have a huge effect actually. Were they notified beforehand that this was coming

or anything?

MR. CROCKER:

Obviously, it was a

budgetary item so they weren't notified beforehand, no.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

And the

processors are the ones who are paying the charge?

MR. CROCKER:

Yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

wanted to ask you a little question and I know we have the committee set up,

an all-party committee and whatnot on the shrimp. Where are we to on timelines

because as a committee Member, we discussed how important it was to have this in

place by June? Are will still on track for that?

MR. CROCKER:

June 15 is the report date.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Is the report date?

MR. CROCKER:

Yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

And what effect is that

going to have on plants in the area? We also discussed that most of the inshore

fishery would start around June 1. I think the catches in the crab seem like

they are pretty good so far, so you'll see the harvesters being ready to go

right away at the first of June. So what effect will this have on opening the

plants, plant workers and stuff like that?

MR. CROCKER:

My most recent conversation

with the FFAW was they don't really see a major concern. Obviously it's a delay,

but they seem to be comfortable with the date of June 15.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I looked at the plant out

your way there last week and the biggest concern I had was that you see a lot of

people who are plant workers, they set up their income, their EI and stuff like

this, so it's very important that that report come in and we do what we have to

with that report so these plants can do their processing and (inaudible)

MR. CROCKER:

And make the necessary

adjustments on it. I couldn't agree more. It's important that this report is

done as expediently as possible, but then again, we don't want to rush the

report because we need these people to understand the benefits of the inshore

shrimp fishery.

And

hopefully, in the next few days, it's my understanding I haven't seen anything

that we're going to find out where they're going to be holding their hearings,

so it will be interesting to see where they go and make sure that us as a

committee prepare our position to say to them focus on where the focus needs to

be here and everything we're going through, the focus needs to be on the

inshore.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I'm not sure I didn't read

the release you gave me yesterday; I didn't get a chance yet. Is there a terms

of reference?

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, the terms of reference

is attached to the piece that was sent to you yesterday.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, so I'll have a look at

that later on today.

we're looking at both the offshore and the inshore fishery and representation is

there from both parties, I would imagine, is it?

MR. CROCKER:

On the panel itself?

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes.

MR. CROCKER:

The panel is

MR. K. PARSONS:

I knew some of the names; I

didn't know all of them.

MR. CROCKER:

No, nor did I, but the panel

is very much science and not really attached, I don't think, to either side of

the industry.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

I want

to talk a little bit about aquaculture; I only have a couple of minutes left

MR. CROCKER:

You'll get more.

MR. K. PARSONS:

No, this is just my

preamble.

Anyway,

I want to talk about aquaculture. Grieg Seafood, where are we with that? What's

the idea? Are we planning to make that investment? Are we going to have them

here? I know we made an announcement last year and it's a huge thing for

Placentia Bay and stuff like that.

MR. CROCKER:

Right now it's in

environmental assessment and due to come out, I think, on April 25?

OFFICIAL:

April 26.

MR. CROCKER:

The 26th of April.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes.

MR. CROCKER:

Grieg are actually back

putting their financing package together. So that's where the province is. We're

waiting for Grieg to come in with their financing package, and that's when we'll

sit down and evaluate the financing package.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

there any money in the budget for investment in this?

MR. CROCKER:

For Grieg, specifically?

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes.

MR. CROCKER:

No, there's not.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

MR. CROCKER:

It's not a line item in the

budget.

MR. K. PARSONS:

It's not a line item in the

budget, okay. So if we do come up with an agreement that this is going to go

forth, because it's another

part I mean, it is a great diversification

program.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Where will the money come

from?

MR. CROCKER:

The money would come from

there's a contingency in the budget, for example. And there are ways for

government to borrow if and when this project comes together.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, perfect.

The

fisheries advisory council, the budget's committed to $200,000 this year. What

are you spending it on; what's it for?

MR. CROCKER:

Well, actually, there's a

commitment for two years.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Two years, okay.

MR. CROCKER:

One hundred thousand dollars

this year and $100,000 next year. That money would be spent on the facilitating

of meetings, the possibility of compensation for a chair or even expenses

incurred by committee members.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Just

going back to that, I want to go back a little bit to the cod fishery because

I'm really concerned about whether we're going to be ready or not. I believe

that we need a whole lot more than $2 million to be ready and to make sure our

plants my prediction is that we're going to see a full-fledged cod fishery in

about three or four years' time. I think that's (inaudible).

We need

to get ready, and I really think we've got to emphasize to the feds how

important this is and to come onside, because we're going to need their

investment here. So I don't know if we should be setting up a committee within

government to advocate and do whatever we can. But what are your thoughts on

where we are with that?

MR. CROCKER:

Well, I think, just to go

back to your earlier point about the fisheries investment fund and with regard

to transition, obviously, it's a concern for all of us that we make sure we're

ready for cod. Again, I'll go back to the processors and the harvesters have

come together. So these guys are working on a plan to ensure that we are ready.

You're

right; we do have a lot of work to do. But we're committed as a government to

ensuring we are facilitating the anticipation of a return of the cod stocks. We

are there. We have an understanding of the importance of cod and where it's

going to be in the future.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I just look at rural

Newfoundland and it is a saviour for rural Newfoundland. We know how vibrant

rural Newfoundland was when the cod fishery was on the go, and I believe that

one thing we should be doing as a government is making sure the investments are

in place so that

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, again, I couldn't agree

more. I come from a district where you can see the impacts of the fishery on a

district. Just last week, we saw what happened in Bay de Verde and the overall

impacts of that throughout the entire region, not just my district. It has an

economic impact all over the province. So yes, absolutely.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

CHAIR:

Anything from Ms. Michael on

1.1.01?

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much.

wasn't going to start with general questions, Minister, but since Kevin did,

I'll just add a couple of questions to some areas you've covered already. I'm

glad to see a seafood advisory council, but one of the things I'd be happier to

see would be a seafood marketing council. I know your mandate letter does give

you a mandate around that, so could you give us some sense of where you see the

marketing council going? I think we really do need a strategy on marketing.

MR. CROCKER:

Absolutely, and what we're

going to do is we're going to use the fisheries advisory council, because the

fisheries advisory council is going to bring together industry, stakeholders. So

one of the first pieces of work and one of the outlines of the fisheries

advisory council is cod recovery. One of the things we're going to ask this

council to do is to advise us of the best way to move forward with marketing.

There

have been attempts in the past to do seafood marketing that haven't gelled with

all the stakeholders. So we're hoping this way, with having all the stakeholders

at one table, we can come up with a plan that is able to address that definite

concern.

Again,

I'll go back to that. When we talk about marketing and seafood marketing and

I'll talk about cod for a moment the beginning of marketing is harvesting.

That product has to be harvested in a manner that recognizes quality. At the end

of the day, quality will sell our products. You can market something once, but

if it's not quality, people won't come back to it.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right, exactly.

Connected to that not necessarily connected, but the new initiative to allow

for the sale of fish directly from wharves, it seems to me that should be a part

of marketing for the provincial market. How are you going to get feedback on how

that's going and where it's happening, et cetera?

MR. CROCKER:

We've committed to engaging

with organizations like the Restaurant Association of Newfoundland and Labrador,

for example, to ensure that anything feel free to correct me. I believe in the

past, the department has engaged with RANL, as an example, and provided funding

for Restaurant Association events which would obviously do what you're saying

and promote, I guess, food tourism.

MS. MICHAEL:

Just a thought, when talking

about stakeholders and the advisory council, are you looking at RANL as maybe

somebody who should be on that advisory council?

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, I believe we have

looked at that industry.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

Maybe

this is for the all-party committee but since it was brought up here, I'll bring

it up.

MR. CROCKER:

Sure.

MS. MICHAEL:

With regard to the LIFO

panel, I was surprised actually that the federal announcement didn't include the

backgrounds of the people who are on the panel. I searched the documents that we

got yesterday and I don't think there are any backgrounders on any of the panel

members.

MR. CROCKER:

It wasn't provided to us.

There was some information but it wasn't whole. We can provide you with what we

have.

MS. MICHAEL:

I think it would be good.

The public may need to know that as well. I was surprised

MR. CROCKER:

For sure, yes. We can go

back to Ottawa and ask for a full

MS. MICHAEL:

Right, that's what I was

thinking. Thank you.

I'll

move then into some line items, beginning with 1.2.01.

MR. CROCKER:

1.2

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes, 1.2.01.

MR. CROCKER:

Executive Support.

MS. MICHAEL:

Under Executive Support,

yes.

It's

not a big item but Transportation and Communications was $65,900 in last year's

budget, the revision was $35,000 and this year it's just $46,000. Could I just

have an explanation of the variations there?

MR. CROCKER:

Well, the variation in the

'15-'16 budget would be, I guess, a lot to do with the downtime in the

department during the writ period. Even the senior staff were on emergency

travel only, and the other one was in that fiscal year there were less than

anticipated FPT meetings.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

MR. CROCKER:

I guess also due to the

federal election.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Would $46,000 then

more reflect what the average has been over the years?

MR. CROCKER:

You're correct. It is a

historical obviously, we went through line by line the entire department

looking for savings, and yes. So the $46,000 was brought back to reflect not

just one year. There are circumstances that would have applied in '15-'16 that

certainly won't apply in '16-'17. One, for example, again would be FPT.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right. Thank you.

Under

Purchased Services, it is cut in half from last year's budget. So an explanation

of what normally would come under Purchased Services under Executive Support.

MR. CROCKER:

Purchased Services would be printing, recycling, shredding, meeting room

rentals. Again, it was less than budgeted last year, and we feel we can

certainly operate within what we've budgeted.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Thank you.

Turning

over to 1.2.02, Administrative Support; I guess an explanation of what's

happening here because there's no money under this now for this year's budget.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, this is a capital

budget and the budget was associated with aquaculture inflow construction

wharves, and this construction has been completed.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Thank you.

I see

there was a revision upward, because the budget was $975,000 but the amount that

was actually spent last year was $1,034,700. So greater cost for the wharves

than was anticipated?

MR. CROCKER:

So, $43,400 of that was

related to consulting and design fees of the construction, and there was another

$30,000 that was related to the purchase of a new three-quarter-ton,

four-by-four pickup for aquatic health. This vehicle was replaced on the advice

of Transportation and Works because it was in a situation where it was cheaper

to get rid of than

MS. MICHAEL:

Right, okay.

CHAIR:

Excuse me, if I could just

interject for a second.

Seeing

that we're doing these subheads, probably what we can do is carry on until

1.4.01 and just do the groups of subheads and we'll have the vote. Is that fine

with everyone?

MS. MICHAEL:

Sure, yes.

OFFICIAL:

(Inaudible.)

CHAIR:

So we'll do 1.1.01 up and

including 1.4.01, which takes the Executive and Support Services as a group.

MS. MICHAEL:

Sure, okay.

CHAIR:

Is everybody okay with that?

Thank

you.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

So if I

can continue then; Minister, because of the detail you just gave me I meant to

mention this earlier, Chair, if I may. Last night the Minister of Municipal

Affairs did give us copies of the Estimates booklet and last year a lot of

ministers gave them to us too, and that saves from asking some of the real

detailed questions.

MR. CROCKER:

Actually, we have copies

with us. We do have a copy for each of you.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, great. That's fine,

because then there'll be questions I won't need to ask because I know.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, certainly. There is a

copy prepared, ready.

MS. MICHAEL:

Great. Thank you very much.

The

next section, 1.3.01, last year the budget for Salaries over in the Salaries

line 01. The budget for Salaries was $976,300 and the revised was $799,200. If

we could have an explanation of that variation and now this year it's back up

to $908,900.

MR. CROCKER:

We had a vacancy we had

two vacancies, actually, two vacant positions. One staff member was temporarily

reassigned to another division. We had lower salary usage for students, and a

position was held vacant for attrition management.

MS. MICHAEL:

Would those students be

summer students?

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, they would.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you.

MR. CROCKER:

You had a second part to your question, why we went from $976,000 to $799,000

and then back to $908,000?

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes.

MR. CROCKER:

There is attrition factored

in as well into this year's salary. That's why you see a change from the actual

last year to this year.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

1.3.02,

the big one for me I think I'll get an explanation of the Salaries in the

book, so I don't need to ask about that.

Under

subhead 10, Grants and Subsidies, last year it was $3,050,000, both budgeted and

revised, and this year it's just $1,900,000. Could we have an explanation of

what those grants and subsidies were for, if all of it was spent, and what's

happening this year with only the $1,900,000?

MR. CROCKER:

There were savings in CFER,

which is the Centre for Fisheries Ecosystems Research. That brings us down this

year. There was the elimination of coastal motion management grants, and there

was a $200,000 savings in the fisheries science.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. What do you anticipate

then the $1,900,000 to be going towards?

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, $1.8 million of that will go to CFER and $100,000 will go to fisheries

science.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

Then

coming over to 1.4.01, Coordination and Support Services, there's a big drop in

Salaries here from $804,000 budgeted last year down to $262,000 this year.

What's happening in this area?

MR. CROCKER:

There was $400,000 of

one-time funding for CETA planning, which has taken place. Then there was

removal of temporary funding related to Fishing Industry Renewal. Then there

were just other reductions.

The

money you see there this year, the $262,000, was formally used to administer

FTNOP but now it will be used to administer the new seafood program.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. I assume in the book

you'll have the detail of what's covered (inaudible).

MR. CROCKER:

If not, I can certainly

provide it.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes, there's no need to go

through all of that because we'll get the book.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL:

That's all the questions I

have in that section.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Minister, I just want to go

back and ask a couple of questions, and then I have a few line-by-line ones

there to ask also.

There

are a lot of reductions and savings, actually, in the department this year. I

want to ask about a couple of them if you can answer them, okay.

The

elimination of the Coastal and Ocean Program grants, what are you eliminating

there with savings of $150,000?

MR. CROCKER:

I can certainly give you

what tab is that under, Dave?

MR. LEWIS:

The last one we were on, 1.3.02.

MR. CROCKER:

Just the last one we were

on, 1.3.02. This is the '15-'16 funding.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes.

MR. CROCKER:

Funding was provided as an

example, there are four different funds there for the FFAW. There was funding

for CFER. Do you want specifics of ?

MR. K. PARSONS:

No, I was wondering what

they were for and what are we actually saving.

OFFICIAL:

That is not one (inaudible).

MR. CROCKER:

Sorry, I apologize wrong

tab. I'm trying to get used to wearing glasses and I can't do it.

MR. K. PARSONS:

You're like me; I have to

put them down on my nose.

MR. CROCKER:

Those grants were provided

to organizations. There was some green crab studies which can be funded

somewhere else, if it's to continue. For example, there was World Oceans Day

funding of $500. There was other funding for NOIA best practices, $30,000;

Students on Ice, $11,000. That's the type of grants that were provided by this

program.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. That whole program,

those grants are just cut now. That program is gone completely.

MR. CROCKER:

That program has been

eliminated.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

How

about the reduction in funding to the seafood development program?

MR. CROCKER:

That would be picked up in

the $2 million for the new seafood program. So if there was something in that

program, for example, that would have been funded previously, they would be able

to apply under the new development program.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Special Assistance Grants, I

think these are the small grants we were giving to harbour authorities and stuff

like that in the department.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

That's completely

eliminated?

MR. CROCKER:

It has been.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Wow. I know in my district

and in a lot of districts, I'm sure with all the Members there behind me from

rural Newfoundland, that this was a grant that we have harbour authorities

that are volunteers in our communities and they do a lot of work. You'd see them

painting and doing a lot of work. These small grants really helped. Is there

anywhere else they can get any assistance?

MR. CROCKER:

Absolutely. Well over 50 per

cent of these grants were going to actual harbour authorities. Small Craft

Harbours have just put I stand to be corrected; I can get you the number I

think it's $40 million back into Small Craft Harbours because, remember, harbour

authorities are a federal jurisdiction.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes.

MR. CROCKER:

The federal government has

put substantially more resources back into Small Craft Harbours.

MR. K. PARSONS:

But they don't include pumps

on wharfs and stuff that's done on the wharf itself. They'll do the wharf and

they'll do, for example, roadwork going into facilities and stuff like this and

the small, little items that are needed. Cosmetic work was most of the stuff

that was done in my area. It was great little grants that cleaned the place up

and did a lot of good work.

I am

just wondering if they can apply through Municipal Affairs special assistance.

Is there anywhere else that I can

MR. CROCKER:

I'm certain they would be

able to apply through Municipal Affairs. I guess through JCP or CEEP. I would

encourage them I've done so in my district refer them back to Small Craft

Harbours because Small Craft Harbours does have a maintenance budget.

MR. K. PARSONS:

But they don't do the small

funds? Do they do the small funds? I can't get any money out of them anyway.

MR. CROCKER:

I stand to be corrected, but

my understanding is, yes, they do small

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. I thought it was a

great fund. I'm sure in your district with all the small communities you have

that people were availing of this. I know in mine, every one of the harbour

authorities basically came and one of them or two of them got a grant every

year. It really helped with the cosmetic stuff down around the wharf. Most of

the grants were only $3,000 (inaudible)

MR. CROCKER:

They were typically a $3,000

grant.

MR. K. PARSONS:

So that's eliminated

completely?

MR. CROCKER:

It is.

MR. K. PARSONS:

We're looking at a lot of

savings in your department. I'm wondering: What effect does it have on jobs? Are

there the same numbers of positions that were in the Department of Fisheries

last year that will be there this year?

MR. CROCKER:

Yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

So there's no reduction?

MR. CROCKER:

There are no staff

reductions.

MR. K. PARSONS:

No staff reductions, okay.

Let's

go to the line by line. I know Ms. Michael asked a few questions here. I'm going

to go back to 1.2.01, Executive Support, the difference between the Salaries. Is

that a vacancy? It was budgeted $721,000 then it was only $700,000 but this

year's budget

MR. CROCKER:

Right.

MR. K. PARSONS:

What's the

MR. CROCKER:

We had a vacant public

relations specialist position for part of the year.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Minister, what I'll basically do because we won't prolong it, I'll just give you

the line and you can give me the description you have there, if you want to.

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah, okay.

MR. K. PARSONS:

It would be quicker for you

than anything else.

Just go

section 1.3.01, Planning and Administration; I'd like to ask you about the

provincial revenue. Can you explain that line, what the revenue is there?

MR. CROCKER:

The variance?

MR. K. PARSONS:

Revenue Provincial, 02, it

shows $2,000. I just always want to know what revenue where does it come from

really?

MR. CROCKER:

The increase was

MR. K. PARSONS:

What's it for? That's all I

really want to know.

MR. CROCKER:

Can you answer that Dave?

MR. LEWIS:

That is sort of a catch-all for miscellaneous amounts; so if someone, for

example, has personal use of a cellphone for a certain period of time and

they'll pay for the personal call and all of that.

There's

a catch-all. If there was revenue that was supposed to have been reflected in

the previous year that shows up late, sometimes that gets in here; it's a

variety of very, very small amounts that total up to a couple thousand dollars a

year.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. I'm always interested

in what the revenue is on the Revenue lines anyway.

Professional Services, there was nothing budgeted in the previous year, yet they

used $35,000 and this year we're budgeting what professional services are you

MR. CROCKER:

Last year, a contract was

required for review of records management and a classification system. It was a

consultant, Prima Information Solutions. This year, you see the $50,000 there.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes.

MR. CROCKER:

That $50,000 is new funding

used to establish the fisheries advisory council.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

How

about the Purchased Services?

MR. CROCKER:

Again, in Purchased

Services, $50,000 of that is budgeted for the new fisheries advisory council.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

On the

Grants and Subsidies, we budgeted $23,000. Last year we used $13,500. This year

we're not going to have any. What are those grants and subsidies?

MR. CROCKER:

The expenditures are related

to sealer training through DFO and the Professional Fish Harvesters

Certification Board. That's been completed.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Let's

go to

section 1.3.02. I know Ms. Michael asked the Salaries one. I want to go to

the Grants and Subsidies again and get an explanation of the difference between

$3 million and basically $2 million here.

MR. CROCKER:

Well, again, $800,000 would

be CFER; $500,000 from the boat and $300,000 from reductions. The other $150,000

would be to the coastal and ocean management and the fisheries science there

would be $200,000.

MR. K. PARSONS:

So it's the elimination of

those grants, okay.

I just

asked about the grants, but different areas where we can see where it is.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Section 1.4.01, Grants and

Subsidies again. I know Ms. Michael asked about the Salaries, but the Grants and

Subsidies, the difference there, $750,000 and $500,000 this year and only

$300,000 used last year.

MR. CROCKER:

Okay. That's the fish plant

worker adjustment program. Last year, there was $300,000 of the budget spent.

This year we've allocated another $500,000 for that program.

That's

the program that is currently being used in Burnt Islands with a permanent plant

closure. There was some funding last year provided to the Town of Harbour Breton

for workforce adjustment, temporary, until the Barry facility opened.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I know I asked this question

before, but this department, this area was mainly where we did CETA. You say we

haven't given up on CETA at all, but yet there's a lot of money that's gone out

of here.

MR. CROCKER:

The work that was done for

CETA, we have it. Those plans, those reports are done and are there to be acted

upon. They are available online.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The

time is expired for

MS. MICHAEL:

(Inaudible) Minister, is

there any possibility, then, that the $500,000, that's something that could be

used, if needed, for the workers from Bay de Verde.

MR. CROCKER:

That's certainly something

that could be looked at, but typically that funding for Bay de Verde, for

example, will come from Municipal Affairs.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. CROCKER:

This funding is for

permanent fish plant closures. And, obviously, we're thankful that Bay de Verde

is not a permanent closure.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

Okay,

thank you.

CHAIR:

Under the voting, we need to

vote separately on 1.1.01.

CLERK:

1.1.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.1.01 carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.

CLERK:

1.2.01 to 1.4.01 inclusive.

CHAIR:

1.2.01 to 1.4.01 inclusive.

Shall

it carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subheads 1.2.01 through 1.4.01 carried.

CHAIR:

Would the Clerk please call

the next set of subheads.

CLERK:

2.1.01 to 2.2.04 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Ms. Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you.

All

right, I'll be doing line questioning here. 2.1.01 has just been called. Under

subhead 10, Grants and Subsidies, if we could have an explanation of this,

Minister, because last year $300,000 was budgeted, $217,000 spent and this year

it's just $10,000.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, that's the Special

Assistance Grants which have been eliminated.

MS. MICHAEL:

I'm sorry, I just didn't

MR. CROCKER:

I'm sorry, that's the

Special Assistance Grants. The $10,000 remaining was in the event that there

were overruns or overlaps. To ensure that no group was left holding leftover

projects, we cover it with the $10,000.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. And so there's no more

money in that.

MR. CROCKER:

No, there's not.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

2.2.01,

Seafood Marketing and Support Services, subhead 10, Grants and Subsidies; it

looks like $200,000 was spent last year and nothing this year. What was that

money used for last year and why would we have nothing going into

MR. CROCKER:

That was time-limited

funding for the seafood marketing council that expired.

MS. MICHAEL:

So now there's no money for

the council?

MR. CROCKER:

Obviously our marketing

money is intact, but we will establish the marketing council on the advice of

the fisheries advisory council.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, so you're putting

everything on hold until you get the advisory council in place?

MR. CROCKER:

Marketing is not on hold, we

still

MS. MICHAEL:

No, but

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah, in that line.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

Could

we have an idea of what that was used for last year?

MR. CROCKER:

I would have to defer to

oh, I'm sorry, actually I have it.

MS. MICHAEL:

That's what DMs are for.

MR. CROCKER:

There was a grant to ASP,

there was a grant to GEAC and there was a grant to the FFAW, Eastern Fish

Markets, Notre Dame Seafoods and the Town of Bay Roberts. They ranged anywhere

from $1,000 to $50,000.

MS. MICHAEL:

So this year there's just no

money for grants?

MR. CROCKER:

If the requests come in they

can certainly be addressed through the new marketing program. For example, there

was a halibut traceability study that would certainly be eligible under the new

program.

MS. MICHAEL:

Now, you may have answered

this before and I missed it, but where is the new marketing money in place?

Where is the line for that money?

MR. CROCKER:

2.2.04.

Yes,

you'll find it in number 10 on 2.2.04.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Since we're talking

about it, let's stay there for a minute then. I did have a question on this

because last year it was $2.5 million and it looks like all of that was used.

Now it's down to $2.2 million in this year's budget, yet it's also incorporating

the line that was in 2.2.01. And yet, we have a drop in the Grants and Subsidies

here. So it just seems to be a drop in money going into innovation, development

and marketing.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, this would break down

to the FTNOP which was $1 million that was set to expire, the seafood

development program which was $525,000 which is now $200,000 and the elimination

of the funding for CCFI.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

MR. CROCKER:

CCFI and FTNOP were doing a

lot of the same work and administration costs were becoming a very large

percentage of the funds. They weren't actually getting the funds out to the

harvesters and processors, so we found streamlining actually, we will be able,

this fiscal year, to put more money out the door to harvesters and processors

through the streamlining.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you very much.

Coming

back then to 2.2.02, I think that's straightforward.

Looking

at 2.2.03, it's probably a similar answer to other places. Under Salaries,

budgeted $417,800 last year but only spent $371,700.

MR. CROCKER:

There was a vacancy.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Has that vacancy

become redundant or is it now filled?

MR. CROCKER:

That vacancy has been since

filled.

MS. MICHAEL:

It has been filled. As you

said

MR. CROCKER:

As you see in the Estimates

for this year, it's back to $422,000.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right. As you said earlier

to Kevin, there are no job losses in your department.

MR. CROCKER:

No.

MS. MICHAEL:

Which is good news.

I think

for the moment, then, they're all the questions I have on

section two.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Minister, I'm going to go

back to

section 2.1.01. I'm really disappointed in that Grants and Subsidies

line because I think it was a good investment in, especially, the small rural

communities where you've got a lot of volunteers in there doing a lot of work.

Like I said, a lot of times I saw one instance where they got enough money to

get the shingles but didn't have enough money to put them on. So they put them

on themselves, and stuff like this.

There

is nowhere in the department that people can apply for these small grants

anymore? That's completely eliminated?

MR. CROCKER:

They would have to go

through Small Craft Harbours.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. There is a program

that we can find out about in Small Craft Harbours?

MR. CROCKER:

I certainly will check, and

you (inaudible).

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. I'd really like to get

that to be able to pass it on to people that avail of this.

How

many different groups and harbour authorities, fishermen's committees,

municipalities and everything used this last year?

MR. CROCKER:

Brian is telling me quickly

that it was 94.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Ninety-four, okay.

Under

the Small Craft Harbours, we noticed

MR. CROCKER:

It's in your binder that

we'll provide you with.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Under

Small Craft Harbours, we know their investment this year in Newfoundland is

huge. It's after going up by, I'm not sure what the percentage point is.

MR. CROCKER:

I think $40 million.

MR. K. PARSONS:

It's a good investment this

year. I was talking to Bill Goulding myself, and Bill was saying because there

were a couple of projects on the go. Is there anything new that we're working

with them to do improvements to a lot of these harbours?

MR. CROCKER:

Absolutely, no different

than like yourself. You talk to Bill on a regular basis; I talk to Bill on a

regular basis, particularly with my district. But absolutely, we're looking at

and I've talked to Minister Foote about this on a number of occasions.

Again,

as we look to transitioning back into groundfish, one of the things we've lost

since 1992 is Small Craft Harbours infrastructure with regard to cod. The way

cod will be harvested in the future is something that Small Craft Harbours needs

to address, and we've had these conversations, because landing shrimp or landing

crab is different than landing cod. So, yes, we're working with Small Craft

Harbours to encourage developments in harbours that recognize the transition

back to groundfish.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I know in my district, and

some other districts I spoke to fishermen, a lot of problems with the harbours

these days. A lot of cranes got replaced, and I know it's in your district too.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I know we've got to put a

and it's a job to get them. They won't do anything until they see what the

landings are in that harbour.

MR. CROCKER:

Right.

MR. K. PARSONS:

There can be no landings in

the harbour when there's no crane there to make the landings.

MR. CROCKER:

Right; and you talk about

the crane and I don't mean to go off course but even if you look at vessel

design as we go back to cod, vessels are going to be designed different.

There's

a new vessel here in St. John's, actually, that was designed for cod. Offloading

is going to be different, because offloading is going to be done now actually in

a pan;

whereas offloading in the past was done maybe in a box. The product is

going to come out of the vessel. It's not going to be handled. It's going to be

taken

MR. K. PARSONS:

That's good for the bigger

vessels, but once we get to the smaller communities and the smaller vessels

and hopefully people do get back into the cod fishery. I know they're going to

have to ice down their fish and probably a different way they're going to have

to do it, but those little, smaller boats are not going to be able to have what

the larger boats

MR. CROCKER:

But they would still have to

avail of the cranes. So obviously

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes, so that's (inaudible).

MR. CROCKER:

that infrastructure is

important.

MR. K. PARSONS:

It is an issue that

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, absolutely.

MR. K. PARSONS:

that's out there, right.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

And it's something we can

look at.

I want

to go to Seafood Marketing. Again, in my

preamble when we talked earlier, how

important this is and where we are. I know that Grants and Subsidies and I

know Ms. Michael mentioned it, but it's a huge concern in the industry, that

we're not going to be ready and that the marketing part of it so I'd like to

see what investments we're making. I know we're doing this innovative, but it

seems like we're throwing everything into this $2 million fund.

MR. CROCKER:

Well, there's been many

attempts made in the past to do seafood marketing, and we could not come

together. Whether it be through the harvesters and processors, we're unable to

come together. The previous administration made an attempt, and I think to the

point where it was even invoked where processors didn't buy in, they didn't come

to the table. This is why it's important that we bring them to the table to see

what it is they're looking for, and this is going to take some time.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes. The Ministerial

Statement you did yesterday with certification and stuff like that, that's a

huge part of marketing today, because people want to see where their product's

coming from, whether it's sustainable and everything else. I know if you look at

the cod fishery back in the '90s and '80s and '70s, it was all done on frozen

block, basically, but this time it looks like the restaurants are looking for

whole cod. It's a different market. So my whole point about the market is making

sure we know what's out there and what's there's an investment that needs to

be done for it, too.

MR. CROCKER:

Well, obviously the

processing sector markets themselves with their brands and their products, but

the FFAW has also done some great work. They have a program ThisFish is it?

OFFICIAL:

Yes.

MR. CROCKER:

The FFAW has done some work

themselves, through DFA and other sources, and produced a program ThisFish. It's

a tagging program. It's used primarily right now in lobsters. So if you buy a

lobster that's harvested by an FFAW

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes, I'm familiar with that.

It's a great program. Like I said, that seems to be where the industry is going

(inaudible).

MR. CROCKER:

Absolutely.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. I just want to go back

again, I'm going to always ask a question on revenue. On 2.1.01, the Revenue

line there. Can you explain that to me?

MR. CROCKER:

On 2.1.01?

MR. K. PARSONS:

2.1.01, Administration and

Support Services. There is Revenue there of $10,000; $25,000 was last year.

MR. CROCKER:

Sorry, 2.1.01. That's wharf

and user fees, and last year was higher than anticipated. These would come

primarily from the South Coast, the inflow and outflow wharves.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. On 2.2.01, there was

revenue budgeted. We didn't get much, and we have none budgeted this year.

What's that about?

MR. CROCKER:

That's related to trade show

costs. One time we would collect and apply against our portion to trade shows.

Now they pay their cost directly. For example

OFFICIAL:

Boston.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes, okay.

MR. CROCKER:

Do you need an example?

MR. K. PARSONS:

No, that's good.

Let's

go to

section 2.2.02, just a couple here. We hired somebody in this area, did

we? Is there an increase in staff there?

MR. CROCKER:

I'm going to turn that one

to Dave.

MR. LEWIS:

In the 2015-16 budget, when that budget was prepared it was just at the time the

attrition planning came in.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

MR. LEWIS:

At that time, it was anticipated that we were going to see attrition occurring

in that particular division so the salary budget was reduced accordingly, but

the attrition hasn't occurred. So we found savings elsewhere in the department

to accommodate the reduction in overall salaries for the department, but it

wasn't in this particular division. So that's why the Salaries were up last year

and the same amount basically has been budgeted again for this year.

MR. K. PARSONS:

So no one wants to leave

your department.

MR. CROCKER:

So that person (inaudible).

MR. K. PARSONS:

Operating Accounts, I wonder

could you explain there, $85,000 budget and $44,000

MR. CROCKER:

The Operating?

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes, on Operating, line

total.

MR. CROCKER:

That's a total line, right?

MR. K. PARSONS:

No, not the total line, 02,

Operating Accounts, it says $85,700

MR. CROCKER:

That is the total line.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, that's the whole

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, that's the whole all

of the changes from above, yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, yes, I see that now.

Sorry about that.

MR. CROCKER:

No problem.

MR. K. PARSONS:

On the next

section down,

2.2.02, Purchased Services, what are the services that we purchased?

MR. CROCKER:

Purchased Services, 2.2.02?

That would be your normal purchased services: printing, copying, shredding.

MR. K. PARSONS:

So, it's basically

MR. CROCKER:

Meeting room rentals, just

general day-to-day operations.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

I know

Ms. Michael asked this question, but again, under

section 2.2.04, the Grants and

Subsidies, that's this new fund you got put in place, right?

MR. CROCKER:

Right.

MR. K. PARSONS:

There are a lot of things we

talked about here this morning going into the fund, yet the fund has been

reduced a little bit from last year.

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah, we've found

substantial administrative savings probably in the area of at least $500,000

through the elimination of CCFI. So what happened last year and both FTNOP and

CCFI were sunsetted in budget 2015-2016. So when we went back to look at the

million dollars that was budgeted for FTNOP in '15-'16 and the million dollars

that was budgeted for CCFI in '15-'16, we found that administration costs were

coming close to 50 per cent of the $2 million. So we went back so that we're

able to get more money to the actual harvester and processor.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, all right.

MR. CROCKER:

So the savings are found in

administration, not the money going to harvesters and processors.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Just go

to the next

section now, 2.2.05. Again this Revenue line I want to talk about,

and if you could give me an explanation there. There was a reduction in what

we're planning to catch (inaudible) licences I suppose.

MR. CROCKER:

Last year, there was money

provided to the two sealing processors in the province. One availed of it. One

was granted the money

MR. LEWIS:

It was put in a trust for them.

MR. CROCKER:

It was put in a trust for

them out of budget '14-'15. One didn't use it, returned the entire $1 million.

That's why it shows up in Revenue because it went out in fiscal '14-'15, came

back in fiscal '15-'16. The other revenue you see there is what's been repaid by

the other borrower.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

While

we're talking about sealing, I have a general question just to ask on this one.

I don't know if you can answer it or Dave can answer it. I have an individual

who contacted me about a seal licence transfer. It was transferred from one boat

to the other. Apparently, you can't do that. How does a transfer work?

MR. CROCKER:

That would be a DFO

question.

MR. K. PARSONS:

It would be a DFO question?

MR. CROCKER:

Yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, I wasn't sure how the

transfer of licences worked, but apparently it can't be done.

What

investments are we making this year when it comes to the seal industry?

MR. CROCKER:

We've met with the industry

and the union and many of the stakeholders involved. We offered assistance. The

assistance was gratefully appreciated that we offered, but to buy from, for

example, Carino this year, they're doing it on their own. Carino is planning

this year, themselves, to harvest 55,000 animals which will be about 20,000

animals more than were harvested in the last year.

MR. K. PARSONS:

What are the markets like?

MR. CROCKER:

The market for seal skins is

poor. The market for seal oil is stronger than it's ever been. One of the things

that Carino and PhocaLux are doing this year is harvesting adults because of the

amount of meat and oil.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The

time is expired. Anything further, Ms. Michael?

MS. MICHAEL:

(Inaudible) Seal Product

Inventory Financing. So just for clarification, is the $825,000 this year being

held in trust or is it that will be the end, that money is going to be coming

into us and that's the end?

MR. CROCKER:

That's what we're expecting

to collect this year. That was paid out last year. So that's where we're

anticipating the return this year, all the money.

MS. MICHAEL:

Is that Carino still or

MR. CROCKER:

No, it's not.

MS. MICHAEL:

It's the other company.

MR. CROCKER:

It's the other company.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, great.

Thank

you very much, that's it.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Would the Clerk please call

the subheads?

CLERK:

2.1.01 to 2.2.05 inclusive.

CHAIR:

2.1.01 to 2.2.05 inclusive.

Shall

the subheads carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subheads 2.1.01 to 2.2.05 carried.

CHAIR:

Would the Clerk please call

the next set of

CLERK:

3.1.01 to 3.1.02 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Mr.

Parsons.

MR. K. PARSONS:

A couple of questions here.

Minister, it's a part of the government that this industry is one of the fastest

growing, and it's a good, diverse industry in the province. I had my first trip

down to the South Coast, down to Tracey Perry's district. I went down there when

I was really young and I remember I was down fishing with my father one time

beautiful part of the country. Just to see how much work is getting done down

there and how the industry has revived the whole South Coast, it's amazing, and

I think it's a bright part of our whole area. There are a lot of investments

after being done by government.

I go

back to the former question I asked you about new players in the industry. How's

that going? Are we getting out there and getting enough players in here? We have

some good players there now.

MR. CROCKER:

First of all, I'm jealous

that you've gotten down, because I've been scheduled to go out twice and snow

and other things have gotten in the way. And you're correct, it is a bright

spot. We are actively working with the people that are already in the province,

whether it's Northern Harvest or Cooke, to help them expand, and we are always

looking for new opportunities in aquaculture. Whether it be in finfish or

mussels, or even new developing areas with regard to oysters and clam.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, there was some

elimination of funds there eliminated the Agriculture and Agrifoods

Development Fund. What was that?

MR. CROCKER:

Agriculture?

MR. K. PARSONS:

Agrifoods Development Fund.

MR. CROCKER:

Agrifoods?

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes.

Oh,

that is Forestry. I'm sorry, I was looking under agriculture there, I'm sorry.

MR. CROCKER:

That's Forestry, wait until

you get Mitchelmore.

MR. K. PARSONS:

We did investments in the

veterinary building and stuff like that.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Where are we to with that?

Were there any reductions or something (inaudible)?

MR. CROCKER:

No, that's going to come up

as a heading under aquatic health.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

MR. CROCKER:

And I can, if you want to

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yeah, go ahead.

MR. CROCKER:

Aquatic health is something

the previous administration put a great importance on and we've continued our

focus on aquatic health.

Actually, to the point of aquatic health, we now have a complement of four

full-time veterinarians in the province.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. We had a lot of issues

in the last number of years, remember with different we see salmon being

destroyed and stuff like that. Where are we with that now?

MR. CROCKER:

Again, to give credit where

credit is due, the investment into the aquatic health centre and the investment

into the fourth veterinarian certainly plays into that. We would be considered a

leader when it comes to our aquatic health program.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

I want

to go to

section 3.1.01, just look at Professional Services. There's a huge

increase there this year from $183,000 to $358,000.

MR. CROCKER:

Right. That was one of our

new initiatives with Bay Management, because one of the important things we need

when trying to find new companies to come into the province and do aquaculture,

one of the first things they want is data on what's available site wise. What

Bay Management does, it goes in and looks at currents and tides, so you

determine if an area is suitable for aquaculture.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Is that what we're doing

down in Marystown way?

MR. CROCKER:

Yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

MR. CROCKER:

Placentia Bay is included in

that, and some more work on the South Coast because that is expanding as well.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

We go

section 3.1.02, line 08 with the loans and the differences. Can you explain

this? Last year we had a budget of $2,800,000 and this year we had $3.2 million

but we only used $685,000.

MR. CROCKER:

That variance is due to

delays in the Northern Harvest project. Northern Harvest is doing an expansion

on the South Coast. There were some delays on Northern Harvest drawing down the

government's contribution, so that money has been moved forward. In actual fact,

last year we only had to pay out $685,000 of the investment into Northern

Harvest.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

That's

it for that section.

CHAIR:

Ms. Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Most of

my questions have been asked by Kevin, but just to come back to the Aquatic

Animal Health, I'm glad to know we have the four vets.

Can we

have an update on the work with regard to the infectious salmon anemia? Because

that's been an issue.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, I'm going to let Brian

address that.

MR. MEANEY:

The ISA events that happened

in '12 and '13 only happened in those areas. There have not been any further

detections of that virus in Newfoundland waters. We have increased our

surveillance as well to monitor that. The company has recovered, because there

was a significant loss due to that event, but the company, if you look at our

production stats, we're back to the 2012 production 2013 production. So

everything is back and the fish are healthy and robust.

MS. MICHAEL:

Great. Thank you very much.

That's

all my questions.

CHAIR:

Would the Clerk please

recall the subheads?

CLERK:

3.1.01 to 3.1.02 inclusive.

CHAIR:

3.1.01 to 3.1.02 inclusive.

Shall

it carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subheads 3.1.01 through 3.1.02 carried.

CHAIR:

Will the Clerk call the next

group of subheads, please?

CLERK:

4.1.01. to 5.1.01 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

MS. MICHAEL:

I have a general question

that I'd like to ask the minister. It has to do with OCI, Minister. I'm really

interested in some update on what their intentions are with regard to Fortune.

As we all know, they did promise 110 full-time positions when they signed the

agreement back when. I'm just interested in knowing what's going on. Do they

intend to bring temporary foreign workers in? Just an update, please.

MR. CROCKER:

Currently, my most recent

discussion with OCI and with the plant workers or the union and some of the

workers represented, the plan originally was to start production, I think, May.

OFFICIAL:

Early June.

MR. CROCKER:

Early June and run to the

end of July, similar to last year's production, and then do the same thing in

the fall as they did last year. Providing, I guess, it was 14 to 16 weeks work.

There

has been some, I guess, media stories, and there might even be a request into

these foreign workers would be used as trimmers. If that happens, the company's

intention is to run from July to December.

What's

happening right now, I guess, from the company's perspective and I did raise

this with the company recently, and I spoke to the union about it as well. The

company today is freezing all yellowtail that's being kept for Fortune and

collecting it so that when they start work, they can provide a continual period

of work.

MS. MICHAEL:

Is it confirmed that

everybody in the area who would want work will be hired prior to even looking at

the temporary foreign workers?

MR. CROCKER:

Well, my understanding is

that would be the role of the federal government to ensure that takes place, but

we haven't really

MR. LEWIS:

They've advertised for trimmers.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, they've been

advertising for trimmers. These people are being brought in specifically as

trimmers.

believe there was an attempt in the past it comes back to something Mr.

Parsons brought up earlier about transition back into cod because we've lost a

lot of, I guess, the skill set that was available in 1992. That's going to bring

a need for new technology when it comes to processing.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

Just

coming back to the whole issue of the transitioning, I know it's not your

department's responsibility for training, but is there cross-department

discussion going on with regard to trying to get our younger people interested

again in fishing?

MR. CROCKER:

Well, it all comes back to,

I guess, we've got to really, what we need to do in the fishery is we need to

get the fishery into a longer season. This is where cod factors in, along with

shrimp and crab and others, because if we're going to attract people into the

industry we need to have something to offer them because people aren't

interested in short pieces of work. The industry should evolve that for us.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

I guess

the issue is a bit bigger in the sense that and that's why I'm saying it's not

just your department obviously, but the whole issue we've almost lost a culture.

There are some communities where the culture still exists but for the majority

of communities that are the potential for the transitioning, we've lost a

culture.

Again,

I think it's more a Cabinet table discussion maybe, but we almost need to be

into the schools. We really need to be looking at the transitioning in as more

than just the technical.

MR. CROCKER:

When I was in Boston, for

example, what I seen is from 1992 to a new ground fishery, there's going to be

a lot of difference in the expertise that's going to be required.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. CROCKER:

You're going to need

computer technicians now as much as you're going to need filleters in lots of

cases because it is going to be more highly skilled work.

MS. MICHAEL:

Just a broad issue that

needs to be discussed I think.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, absolutely.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you.

MR. K. PARSONS:

(Inaudible.)

MR. CROCKER:

No, they're not equipped for

cod. Obviously, we have Arnold's Cove, they've done about 10 million pounds of

cod this year. Quinlan in Old Perlican did over a million pounds last year.

Beothuk has started to do some cod. Who else, Dave?

MR. LEWIS:

Fogo Island.

MR. CROCKER:

Fogo is doing some cod.

OFFICIAL:

There is a small cod plant

in Bay Roberts.

MR. CROCKER:

Right, there's a secondary

in Bay Roberts. John Osmond on the West Coast; Codroy fisheries is doing some

cod.

MR. K. PARSONS:

What is the total on cod?

MR. CROCKER:

The quota is 15,000 tons. Of

the 15,000 tons allowable about half is being done.

MR. K. PARSONS:

(Inaudible.)

MR. CROCKER:

Broadly I guess the supply

is not really to meet today's cod market, to compete with Iceland, Iceland is

harvesting cod 12 months a year. We don't have enough resource to get back into

that market. The downtime in Iceland for cod is July and August. When we're

catching cod, Icelanders go on holidays. Markets don't want cod in July and

August.

One of

the things I found most interesting when I moved into this department is the

fact that the peak season for seafood consumption is really November 15 until

Easter Sunday. That's when people want seafood. That's one of the beauties of

the aquaculture industry is you take it out of the water as you need it. It's

one of the challenges that you face with a wild fishery.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I like it in the summertime

(inaudible).

MR. CROCKER:

Don't we all.

MR. K. PARSONS:

As we discussed yesterday,

the conversation we had yesterday, and while we're on the cod, just to continue

with this discussion. As we know, the federal government is going to increase

quotas to the inshore fishery this year. It's pretty well known through the

industry that it is.

So if

we are at the level right now that we're only being able to process half of what

we're allocated if the allocation doubles, how are we going to process the

cod?

MR. CROCKER:

Well that step forward,

that's one that the union and the processors that were involved in this

announcement a week and a half ago, they're really focusing on that as a

challenge they're going to face. To have co-operation even at that level of the

harvesters and the processors and you see the processors that have come to the

table already, and we're hearing we can expect other processors to come to that

table as well, as time moves forward. Their focus is really on the overall or

the overarching questions that you guys have raised today about cod so

addressing that problem.

MR. K. PARSONS:

It's a huge problem,

somewhere we should be up front, on the ball with, basically, because again, I

don't know where they're going to sell I know that most of the inshore fishery

now, where they've got small quotas I think it's at 6,000 or 7,000 pounds

it's easy enough to be able to sell it to the markets of the fish and chips

places and people buying cod.

MR. CROCKER:

The door-to-door sales and

MR. K. PARSONS:

Door-to-door sales, salt

fish, and stuff like that. But once that increases it's going to really put a

well, we don't have a glut anymore. We'll never have that again, I don't think.

But the markets are going to be and where are they coming from? Where are they

going to sell their fish?

MR. CROCKER:

Right, and understanding

what it is the market wants. So there's a big piece of work there, and it's

encouraging to see the formation of this council. We're committed to working

with this council.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Were we asked to be on that

council?

MR. CROCKER:

No, we weren't. We were

actually invited to meet with the council, along with DFO, after their

announcement. So their announcement was on, I think, Friday morning. We met with

them Friday afternoon. So they wanted to do it without

MR. K. PARSONS:

Government.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

MR. CROCKER:

I shouldn't say without

government, but they

MR. K. PARSONS:

No, no.

Are

they going to establish their own marketing is that what their plan is?

MR. CROCKER:

I believe they're looking at

all the pillars of the business. I think when they're ready, you will see they

will approach government and say this is the role that we would like for

government to play.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

That's

it for this section.

CHAIR:

Ms. Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

Just one more question,

Minister, with regard to OCI. If I'm not mistaken, I think the Quota Holdco

agreement expires this year. So what's the intent of government with regard to

the agreement? Extending it, put in quotas, up for bid?

MR. CROCKER:

Okay, so it does expire and

we would, going forward, seek an extension, and OCI has agreed as well.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, so you won't be

putting it up for bid; you'll just go for an extension with OCI first.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you very much.

CHAIR:

Anything further?

MS. MICHAEL:

That's it.

CHAIR:

Would the Clerk please

recall the subheads.

CLERK:

4.1.01 to 5.1.01 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 4.1.01 to 5.1.01

inclusive carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subheads 4.1.01 through 5.1.01 carried.

CHAIR:

Would the Clerk please call

the total?

CLERK:

The total.

CHAIR:

Shall the total carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. K. PARSONS:

(Inaudible)?

CHAIR:

Yes, we did.

MR. CROCKER:

Do you have questions on it

(inaudible)?

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes, I have one. I just have

one question here on the Grants and Subsidies. I was wondering what they were

for.

MR. CROCKER:

Pardon?

MR. K. PARSONS:

Grants and Subsidies here in

5.1.01. I was wondering what the Grants and Subsidies were for.

MR. CROCKER:

I have to turn that over to

Brian actually.

MR. MEANEY:

Those grants are primarily funding to research institutions for specific pieces

of research that we need on fish health. So we may contract the Atlantic

Veterinary College to provide advice on sea lice counting techniques or to other

veterinary institutions where we look for specific information or advice on our

fish health program.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, that's good.

We're

not completely finished now though, are we? Obviously, you know what I'm going

to ask now. The last question I want to ask is about our recreational fishery.

MR. CROCKER:

There's no way he was going

back to his office today without asking that.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I've seen it, Minister, and

it really scares me. I've seen it in the area of the province where I'm from.

It's different in Trinity Bay. We'd go up there a scattered time up in Old Shop

and go out off there, but it's the safety thing really is the emphasis for me.

When I see people go out in small little boats that I wouldn't put in some ponds

and they're out there fishing on the North Atlantic because they're out there

trying to catch fish on days that they shouldn't be out there.

I know

you're advocating on behalf, but I really believe it's something that emphasis

has to be put on to the federal government. This fishery is unfair. It's putting

people's lives we see it every year. Every year somebody loses their life at

this fishery. There's no need of it, when the rest of Atlantic Canada can go and

fish.

I have

solutions. I'd like to tell the federal government what I think about it. I

think the tag system would work.

MR. CROCKER:

You believe it would work?

MR. K. PARSONS:

It would, yes.

MR. CROCKER:

Okay.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Because that way it would

put people out in rather than rush out on a Saturday and a Sunday to get the

last weekend in. I know at the end of the year when every year they did the

last week in September. September is a dirty month and you can't get on the

water. What we're doing to people I think the federal government don't realize

that it's a safety issue. Every year there are some lives lost at this fishery,

and there's no need of it.

MR. CROCKER:

As a government, we agree

with what you're saying. It's so important. It's recognized, actually, in my

mandate letter from the Premier to advocate to the federal government for a

fairer system and a safer system. Not only fair, but safer system where

timelines would be expanded to allow for and I agree with you. That week in

September is usually just a wash because it's our September weather is not

conducive.

I've

advocated on every occasion that I've met with Minister Tootoo, every occasion

that I've had the opportunity to meet with Minister Foote, and it's something

that we expect to see some changes. The cod management plan is due down, I

think, in early May. This is where we're expecting to see, because the cod

management plan is where as you alluded to earlier, expectations of changes in

the quotas will come in in the cod management plan. So certainly the

recreational fishery and our tourism fishery, because that's the other piece

that holds a lot of potential for parts of this province. We're looking forward

to something in the management plan.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. Just to go to that

again, we do want to emphasize to the federal government and I know Dave and

yourself will know this, that we can't have both fisheries at the one time

because when you have nets and that on the grounds and people fishing. It's

important they realize that, and the fishermen don't want it for one reason. The

fisher people just don't want it, but it's recreation.

Just to

go to the tourism aspect of it. Anybody who gets an opportunity to go out and

catch a cod I take a lot of people out. They just absolutely love it. I'm used

to it, but what it can do to the tourism industry is huge. Tour operators want

to know early enough so they can advertise; they can have their brochures done.

The later and the longer this gets delayed, it's harder on the tourism industry

too, because this is huge for the tourism industry.

MR. CROCKER:

And I guess one of the challenges this year, being the expiry of the previous

management plan which lasts three years. This all has to be factored into the

management plan.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes.

CHAIR:

Anything further Ms.

Michael?

Would

the Clerk please call the total?

CLERK:

Total.

CHAIR:

Shall the total carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, total heads, carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the Estimates

of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture carried without amendment?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, Estimates of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture carried without

amendment.

CHAIR:

I just want to announce the

time and date of our next meeting of the Resource Committee is Tuesday, tonight,

April 19, at 6 p.m. with the Department of Natural Resources and the Office of

Public Engagement.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I would just like to thank

the minister and thank his staff for coming here this morning, and thank you for

answering all the questions. You did a great job, Minister. Again, it's an

important industry in the province and I think we have to be on top of our game.

Thank

you very much for what you did here this morning, and I thank all of the

Committee members for coming here.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Ms.

Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

(Inaudible.)

MR. CROCKER:

Again, thank you for the

questions.

At any

time, if myself or the department can answer a question that you guys might

have, feel free to contact us.

Oh, and

some light reading.

MS. MICHAEL:

Great.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Hearing nothing further, the

Chair would entertain a motion to adjourn.

MR. BRAGG:

Moved.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, the Committee adjourned.