Fisheries Committee on May 29th, 2008

[David Olson]

We're managing it for them, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

All right. That was for clarification.

Mr. Stoffer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for appearing before us today.

Sir, were any of the harbours under the jurisdiction of Transport Canada at the time of divestiture? I know in western Canada and eastern Canada we ran into some harbours that were actually owned by Transport Canada. I'm wondering, out of ignorance, prior to this program, was Transport Canada responsible for any of the harbours?

[David Tomasson]

You know, I'd have to say I really don't know of any.

But I would like to comment on the question that I think Bill raised. I'm not sure who raised it, but it was about who owns or who started this facility, for example.

These harbours, and this one here, as David said, was built about 1900, but the federal government basically was responsible initially for these wharves and docks. This goes back 100 years. Most of them, up until now, were under the jurisdiction of the federal government until the Department of Fisheries and Oceans developed their small craft harbours program.

For example, my harbour at Hecla Island, which is another 60 miles north of here...up until 10 years ago, the land and the wharf belonged, and still does, to the federal government. We lease it back from them through Fisheries and Oceans.

I'm not so sure about the fine line between Transport Canada and whether they were involved at one time. I don't know. But I do know most of them are owned by Fisheries and Oceans. We've signed a long-term, 20-year lease. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans did make some improvements, which was a godsend, because if you have a facility like this and you have any kind of major issue, you have a $1 million or $2 million problem. There is no way, in our fishery, that we can afford that.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

In most of the harbours we have seen so far, we have heard there's a really good working relationship between the front-line DFO staff of the small craft harbours program and the harbour authorities throughout the country. I understand that same type of relationship exists here. Is that correct? It's very positive?

[David Tomasson]

Yes, and we're very, very appreciative. In fact, at our annual meeting--and I tried to say it in the presentation--basically, the representatives from over 35 to 38 harbours were very, very positive in wanting us to convey to the committee members that we have a very good working relationship with the small craft harbours people. It's very good.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Great.

Mr. Olson, regarding the divestiture program, in most cases we found out that the federal government either didn't sell or completely turn over the harbour to either a private or a municipal identity. They actually still own the structure. It's only being managed by a harbour authority. In Ladner, we found out that the Delta town council manages the harbour, but it is still a federal government asset.

In your presentation this morning, are there discussions or any concern at all that the ownership of the property at the harbour in Gimli may be completely turned over and either sold or transferred to either a private or a municipal identity or another group? Is that a concern you have?

[David Olson]

Well, I hope it doesn't happen. I think that's the whole purpose of seeing you people today, trying to get on the agenda to make that presentation to you to say that we appreciate the federal involvement in our community. It's fantastic, and we thank you for that.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Very good.

Sir, with the issue of the reserve lands--again, I plead ignorance--I didn't know that reserve lands extended to aquatic concerns like Lake Winnipeg, for example. Usually I've thought of reserves as being terrestrial and not necessarily aquatic, unless there is a lake within the total jurisdiction.

In Lake Winnipeg, does the reserve extend out into some of the water as well?

[David Tomasson]

No. Now you're getting into a fine line. In most jurisdictions, I believe the government legally owns 99 feet to a high-water mark. Therefore, I believe the reserve lands do not extend beyond that. But when you put a structure on the aquatic part, you have to have access. To get access, you have to go on the reserve land, unless you come by boat. Any facilities to service it there, whether it's a fish shed, hydro, whatever, all have to come off the reserve. That becomes a bit of an issue, I believe, for ownership, access, those kinds of things. I think that's the issue.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Calkins, please.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly appreciate hearing from you again, Mr. Tomasson. If I remember correctly, you were actually present at.... Of course, it looks like there needs to be some work done.

You talked about it, Mr. Tomasson. When I looked at it, the first thing that struck my mind, being from one of the prairie provinces--as a matter of fact, I'm the only member of the committee from the prairie provinces. When you take a look at the history of the small craft harbours program, the divestiture program, I don't think there is any region, other than the central and the Arctic, that was hit with as much divestiture. So right away the central and Arctic region had more divestitures than did the Atlantic regions or the Pacific region. Given that, and I've seen the slides and the numbers, on a per capita or a per harbour basis, the central and Arctic region--and you alluded to this--is significantly underfunded in relation to some of the other regions in the country.

Has the Freshwater Harbour Authority Advisory Council looked at exactly what kind of a number we're looking at? I know you said it works out to about $200,000 for the 16, but if we were to take a look at all of the core fishing harbours that are still identified by the small craft harbours program as core fishing harbours, what are we looking at insofar as bringing it up to par with the kind of funding that, say, other regions would get?

[David Tomasson]

Now you're getting into an area where I wouldn't want to really mention a figure. I indicated here the 16 facilities that I think we need or that have been identified. I think I mentioned about $3.2 million. I think that's underfunded right there because that figure has been bandied around now for about three to four years. That figure today may be up closer to $5 million, just with the inflation.

I do want to compliment Fisheries and Oceans. When we talked about underfunding to our region, Fisheries and Oceans listened, to a degree. They know we're underfunded, and it's a traditional thing; it's because that's where it began. In order to get us up to par, they'd either have to take funding from one of the regions--which we don't support, because the other regions obviously would get uptight and we don't want that--or it has to come from new funding. Fisheries and Oceans have had new funding. Fisheries and Oceans brought in some fatigue money about two or three years ago, and as a result, the small craft harbours program got one-fifth of an equal share. They never based it on the formula, the old formula, where we would have been underfunded. They did give us an equal share, which was a positive, and I compliment Fisheries and Oceans for that.

Now your question is, how much is the shortfall? I don't want to throw that figure out, but that can be easily gotten to. In fact, I'm sure the small craft harbours here locally have it.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Interesting.

Are you a fisherman at all, Mr. Tomasson?

[David Tomasson]

Yes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

And you, Mr. Olson?

[David Olson]

Yes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

We talk about this, and obviously the focus of our study is small craft harbours, but the harbour is here to support the fishermen.

If you take a look at the mission statement that the small craft harbours program has, the primary goal is to support the commercial fishery. Depending on where you go, there's commercial sport fishing, plus there's recreational use of the various harbours. We've certainly seen indications of that at the three harbours we've seen on Lake Winnipeg. We've seen some interesting arrangements, where there are some private and government wharves or docks in the same facilities.

But when it comes right down to it, it shouldn't be harbour management or the small craft harbours driving fisheries policy; it should be there to support fisheries policy. From a fisheries policy perspective, it would be important to justify increased funding for the small craft harbours.

With the high cost of the dollar right now, I know there is some question as to whether the current marketing system for the freshwater fishery is making all the fisheries viable. The walleye, pickerel, and sauger fisheries are still very viable. But when it comes to things like whitefish or the mullet, we've heard testimony about bushing the fish and so on because it's no longer profitable. When you have more profitable fisheries, it makes it easier for governments to justify spending money on wharves.

Are there any comments you would like to bring forward that would help this committee in its deliberations? Are there any policy changes that need to be made to make it easier to justify increased spending on small craft harbours?

It's an open-ended question, and I'll just leave that out there.

[David Tomasson]

My quick comment is that we certainly support the fish harvesters as being a top priority for the harbour. And that is a policy under the small craft harbours program. Obviously the more viable a fishery is the better the conditions should be in the harbour, with more allocation of moneys to it.

It also gets a bit complicated, and I'm sure it's the same in Alberta. The federal government, under Fisheries, has passed the management on to the provincial authorities. The province determines the quota aspect, and the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is the marketing agent to set the prices on that. It's maybe a little different for your other colleagues from the coastal fisheries.

I know I'm very confident in saying we feel that the fishers should have the priority that the small craft harbours program gives them in managing.... They take a priority over the recreation fishery and such, and so they should.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Right.

Mr. Olson, do you want to comment?

[David Olson]

I would ask you to maintain the status quo and make sure that the federal inventory of harbours in western Canada is looked after. I think if you want fish production to grow, then you have to put money into new harbours. There are lots of opportunities. I'm sure we can produce 75 million pounds of fish in western Canada; we might be halfway there now.

If it's an open-ended question, bring the money, put the harbours in, and we'll catch the fish.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

From a fishing policy perspective, in Alberta I'm not aware of any quotas as far as.... We have a lake quota. It's usually whitefish. We have an allowance on other species. Whatever number you hit first, the lake shuts down. Now we don't have any lakes the size of Lake Winnipeg in Alberta.

My understanding, through Manitoba Conservation, is that you have a licence to fish a certain quota, much like you would have on a coastal community. But some of the other lakes have a lake allowance. Do I have that right?

[David Tomasson]

In Manitoba we normally have had, and we do have, lake quotas. But back in the seventies, when there was a mercury pollution scare on Lake Winnipeg, the lake shut down for a few years and they basically turned the lake quota into individual quotas for fishers. In fact, they have remained very constant in that regard for a number of years.

It's my understanding that this is being reviewed again, to update whether those quotas should be increased, decreased, or whatever. It's not likely that it will be increased, because we're seeing record productions out of Lake Winnipeg that have never been seen before.

The point I'm trying to make to you is that the individual quotas basically make up the lake quota.