Okay. And boats are still using both wharfs. Is that correct?
Evidence of meeting #37 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was wharf.
Evidence of meeting #37 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was wharf.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Okay. And boats are still using both wharfs. Is that correct?
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
What kinds of boats are we talking about, Chief? Are we talking about fishing boats?
2:25 p.m.
Chief, 'Namgis First Nation
You're talking about fishing boats, sailboats, small pleasure boats, gillnetters. When they come in to visit Alert Bay, they try to tie up at the breakwater--the rock breakwater run by the municipality. Sometimes they tie up at the other breakwater, but as I say, it's not protected by a rock breakwater.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Right. It's a creosote wood one that over time has been taken out.
You talked about it being a hindrance to economic development because you're not capturing tourism opportunities with the number of vessels that are going by. They pull in, they poke in, they look around, they don't see what they want as far as being able to tie up safely, and they move on to some place else.
Do you have ideas about this? Have you commissioned a study, any type of report, or anything that would tell you what a breakwater would do for you as far as economic development? Have you had any consultant work done on that?
2:25 p.m.
Chief, 'Namgis First Nation
We are working on that now, but we know by witnessing how many boats come in, slow down, and then take off out of the harbour.
We have a world famous cultural centre in Alert Bay that people stop in to see. We have pocket cruise ships that tie up in Alert Bay to come to see the cultural centre.
One of the things we'd like to do is to make the breakwater large enough so we can accommodate the larger yachts--the 200-foot and 300-foot yachts--that really want some place to tie up. And they pay for the moorage.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
I also heard from you, and correct me if I'm wrong, that those small craft harbours were both DFO. The wharf that was built in 1958 was basically abandoned by DFO. Did I understand that correctly? And the one that was built in 1969 has been divested to the community. Did I get that right?
2:25 p.m.
Chief, 'Namgis First Nation
Yes. The one that was constructed in 1957-58 was actually constructed by Public Works Canada. In 1969, when the other boat harbour was constructed, Public Works Canada cancelled its lease to that particular site. It wasn't until 1988 that we officially took over the lease and started maintaining that harbour and doing the small repairs, just to keep it operational.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Given the fact that it has been divested--and the whole purpose of a divestiture program is to basically get it out of the responsibility of the Government of Canada, in this particular case, into the realm of responsibility of another organization or another level of government or whatever the case might be--what expectations do you have of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as far as this is concerned?
2:30 p.m.
Chief, 'Namgis First Nation
Well, what we're hoping to do once we've completed our study, our engineering, is to approach the small craft harbours program again and ask it to support the building of a rock breakwater and the expansion of that particular breakwater. This is because the existing breakwater that is run by the municipality can't handle any excess boats because normally it's full with local boats.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Mr. McPhee, thank you very much for the tour today. I certainly appreciated it.
I think it's the first time I've heard about installing security cameras to keep an eye on the harbour, and I'd certainly be interested to see how that turns out. I think the Department of Fisheries and Oceans requires fishermen to have cameras on their boats. I don't know if we've ever had it in such a way that we've required cameras to overlook the harbour.
I want to get the question I have for you on the table as a matter of public record. I'm going to ask you the same question I asked you on the harbour today, or on the wharf, and it deals with derelicts. I was quite surprised to learn at previous committee hearings out here on the west coast—and I believe we were in Richmond when I asked this question of the Harbour Authority Association of British Columbia—what percentage of berthage space is used up by derelict vessels or vessels that can't be removed given the current circumstances, the way the law is interpreted and read. I was told it's anywhere from 10% to 50%, depending on the particular harbour. But the number I got from you this morning was quite a bit different, and I am wondering if you could just basically restate what you told me earlier today as a matter of public record for this committee meeting.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
I asked you how many derelict vessels you have, what percentage—
2:30 p.m.
Harbour Manager, Port Hardy Harbour Authority
I think our percentages are low compared to the number of boats we have in the harbour at any given time. The year we took over, I think there were three boats taken out and a couple more that should have been taken out or were in the process of being removed from the harbour, but we're not up to 50%. What you looked at this morning would have been 40 to 44 boats down there if it were at 50%. No, it wasn't that high. It's not that high.
You asked how the boats were removed. Again, there is the legal process that we have to go through or is to be gone through. The problem you have there is with the documentation. Most of what's required is non-existent. Then you talk to various people, one of them being a lawyer who attends the conferences down there, and, yes, it's all “We have these contracts, we have this, we should do this, and we should do that”. Then you talk to the other side of the table and they say you can have all the contracts you want, but they're not going to be worth anything when it goes to court.
The problem you're looking at is that you could have all this stuff, but the people who are reading it—and I would assume right through from the crown prosecutor in this municipality to the magistrate, and I'm not knocking them—their knowledge of that particular type of law is very limited. The people who are trying to manage it or to enact those laws into the municipal bylaws aren't going to understand a lot of that stuff, because it's going back to the old maritime laws and the like.
What I was stating was that somewhere along the line this process has to be streamlined so that the average lay person can understand it and use that documentation and enact these regulations into the municipal bylaws. But it has to be streamlined down to a layman's working level. It can't go with maritime laws that date back to the old Brits and stuff like that.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
As someone who is directly involved in the management of that harbour, could you give me your definition of a derelict vessel?
2:35 p.m.
Harbour Manager, Port Hardy Harbour Authority
You could start with not being paid for its moorage--and I'm not talking about three or four months--I'm looking at years in the past. The owners, or whoever, have not attended to that vessel over a long period of time. I won't give you a date or time limit, but again, a year or six months that the person has not attended to that vessel. The harbour people are constantly having to pump it out. The last vessel we had in there, we were pumping that vessel out every two days.
A lot of these old vessels are wooden vessels and the caulking goes on them. There's a lack of maintenance and the wood starts to separate, the caulking is no longer there, and the vessel starts to sink. For a lot of these derelict vessels, the equipment on them doesn't work any more; there's no more power in it and the engines aren't working. That would be what I would call a derelict vessel. It's totally unfit to even leave the bay.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Fabian Manning
Thank you, Mr. Calkins.
Committee, we have time to do a three-minute round if we stick to our guns and the time. We need to allow time to clear the table to get ready for our next presenters. I'd ask for your cooperation on that. Three minutes includes your question, and leave room for your answers, because I will be sticking to it.
Mr. MacAulay, you're on for three.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Thank you very much.
I thank everybody for coming.
Mr. Schmidt, I'll continue with that line of questioning. I expect what you want on the record is that you want something done in a legal fashion. You want it in the report, and I'll let you word it, but you have a small problem compared to some with derelict vessels. Also, if somebody doesn't pay their fee for tying up, what do you do about it ?
2:35 p.m.
Harbour Manager, Port Hardy Harbour Authority
Right now, we will deal with not paying fees down at our level for a period of time.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
You want something in a recommendation that would come in on this report, would go to the minister, and that would make it easier for you to handle this. You're talking about the legal problems? That's what I'm trying to get at.
2:35 p.m.
Harbour Manager, Port Hardy Harbour Authority
Off the top of my head right now, I can't answer you. I'd have to do some thinking about it. I don't want to say something and it not be the proper stuff to come out with. It would have to be something that would be looked at in conjunction with the district office. They're ultimately the people the money is going to, and we'll get involved in trying to collect those moneys.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Mr. Sherrell and Mr. Schmidt, if I understood you correctly, you took over a harbour that was divested a second time. Is that correct? Somebody took it over and there was funding that came the second time also. Is that correct?