Fisheries Committee on May 30th, 2006

[Cal Hegge]

The support of your committee might help us. I believe that your committee did play a small role when went received an additional 100 million dollars, or 20 million dollars per year over five years. So, that might help.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Excuse me, could you explain something very quickly?

I see at table one that the 2005-06 budget was increased by 16.3 million dollars through what is called here "Program enablers". What does that mean? There is 16.3 million dollars for 2005-06 and 16.2 million dollars for 2006-07. In the French version, I read "facilitateurs du programme". What do they do?

[Cal Hegge]

Is that from our presentation?

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

You have submitted a table entitled "Departmental Spending, Small Craft Harbours, 2003-2008".

[Robert Bergeron]

Are you alluding to the value of human resources and financial services that we receive from the department?

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

No.

[Robert Bergeron]

No?

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

No. I could show you the table. It is a table showing that the budget has increased by 100 million dollars, and this appeared in 2005-06 under "Program enablers". I remember that Mr. Da Pont had mentioned that additional money would be received, when he appeared before the committee. Is that the amount he was referring to? What is this amount?

[Robert Bergeron]

it is a different way to repor8t Fisheries and Oceans expenditures. There are some support activities for the programs of the department. You have the human resources group, as well as the financial aalysts and the information technology groups, among others.

When we report to Parliament, we report the amount spent for administrative and financial support, as well as for human resources support. Those amounts are allocated to each program of the department, Small Craft Harbours being one. So, the 16.3 million dollar amount represents the value of the services that the program has received from the department. It is not really money that we would have received to set up maintenance programs or to repair harbours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Blais.

Mr. Stoffer, you'll have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for your presentation this morning.

As you're probably aware, those of us from Nova Scotia have been following the Digby fiasco quite closely. I'm going to ask you various questions, if you could jot them down and answer at the end.

What measures are in place to prevent another Digby wharf fiasco again?

The other concerns are about Nunavut. We've been talking a lot to folks up in Nunavut about the possibility of infrastructure money going into wharf development. Would that fall under your purview, or would it be under the Department of Transport, or another department of that nature?

Also, the third bullet on page 7 of your document says: “Most HAs are small and volunteer-dependent, with little turnover and suffering fatigue, thus jeopardizing the model.” Yet before that you say: “There is room for HAs to raise more fees.”

As someone who has been representing fishing communities for a while, I've always looked at wharves and docks as people look at highways in cities. When tolls and service fees are put on these, they put a further burden on people trying to make a living from the sea. I'm wondering how you could say that most HAs are volunteer-dependent and fatigued—because you're absolutely correct on that—then turn around and say they can raise more fees. The last thing fishermen need now is additional fees to cover the cost of their operating.

The last one I want to mention is that I really appreciate the fact you've said on several occasions here this morning the word “cash-starved”. You don't often hear people from departments say that in committee. This $8 million is not going to be enough, obviously, to suit your needs. If you could write yourself a cheque from Treasury Board to meet the needs of small craft harbours in this country, how much money would you like to see added to your department to meet the needs of Canadians?

[Cal Hegge]

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer, for those questions.

I will defer to Robert. Hopefully he can answer the one on Digby. I'll come back to your other questions.

[Robert Bergeron]

A situation such as Digby, from the perspective of Fisheries and Oceans, would not happen, because we don't divest core fishing harbours; we maintain those harbours. Had we owned Digby in the first place, we would not have divested Digby.

Another guarantee we have, when we divest ourselves of harbours—and as I said, we don't divest core harbours—is that we normally do business with non-profit organizations representing local stakeholders. I understand this may be part of the explanation of the problem at Digby; that the corporation to which the port was divested did not represent the local stakeholders. That is a situation we try to avoid in Small Craft Harbours when we divest ourselves of harbours. Either we divest to the local municipalities representing the local users, or we divest, as I said, to a non-profit organization representing the local stakeholders. That's how, at least in the perspective of Fisheries and Oceans, we would prevent a situation such as Digby happening within the portfolio owned by Small Craft Harbours.

[Cal Hegge]

With respect to your other questions, your first one on Nunavut harbours, I believe our deputy spoke to that briefly last year during one of the hearings. I don't mind telling you that we have been working closely with Nunavut officials on the requirement for small craft harbours in Nunavut. Through a joint report that is not quite yet finalized--but once it is I do not see why we wouldn't share it with the committee--a requirement for seven harbours is identified.

As recently as last week, we had a meeting with the Nunavut officials. Our deputy was there, myself, Robert, and others with the Department of Transport that you alluded to in your question, because they have infrastructure funding. We are going to continue to have discussions with the Department of Transport on how we might collaborate withTransport and perhaps other government departments, either in the context of a northern strategy or more specifically to address the harbour requirement in Nunavut. So that is a bit of an update, and we should have additional information in the not too distant future.

I should perhaps qualify the comments with respect to harbour authorities, because you're quite right. What the presentation indicates is that the harbour authorities as a group are fairly small, dedicated, and working very hard to do what they can. The way the deck presents the situation is that in accordance with prevailing market conditions there is potential there to raise additional revenue. But your point, which I think is quite valid, is that by raising fees this would certainly be seen to be a negative aspect by the fishing industry, which is suffering.

So when you make that linkage I can fully understand your point. What we were saying is simply from a strict prevailing market situation, there would be the potential to raise fees, which could be directed back into the maintenance of the harbours. I think we have to make that distinction in terms of the linkage there.

Your other question is quite intriguing in terms of if I had the authority to write a cheque for the department. We have done some estimates. I alluded to a figure earlier, an additional $35 million that we could use on an annual basis. There are also additional funds we could use quite effectively, I think, to divest the remaining harbours. So we have figures in mind that we are going to be pursuing with the minister and within our department.

One comment I would like to make, as I think this committee is well aware, is that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has a very vast and important mandate in terms of service to Canadians. I would not want to suggest that the small craft harbours program, as short of funds as it is, is not being looked at in terms of priority with all of our other departmental priorities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Hegge.

Mr. Manning, ten minutes.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

First of all, welcome, and thank you for coming before the committee this morning.

On the divestiture of harbours, before I get into my main topic, I am sure you have laid out some goals and targets you`d like to reach over a certain period of time in relation to divestiture. Can you enlighten us with regard to meeting those goals and targets over the past several years and how you are doing with that divestiture?

[Cal Hegge]

As you saw in terms of our budget situation, I think we have made considerable progress in divesting harbours. The numbers are in the presentation since 1994-95. Obviously, we have a number of harbours yet to divest, which we could move more quickly on if we had more money.

In terms of the strategies we are looking at to address some of the funding problems of the program, we think we have a pretty strong case, if we had the money, to increase the pace of divestiture. This would then create a situation, I guess, of cost avoidance, which in itself would help the funding situation within the program.

Given the funding restrictions we have or the funding in the budget we have to deal with vis-à-vis other priorities for the department, I think we've made considerable progress in the divestiture program. It is quite a successful initiative, but one that could benefit from and be advanced by additional funding.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

In relation to the comment on the cash-starved program, I think all of us around the table representing areas that are dependent upon small craft harbours would agree with that.

Last year during the hearings the deputy minister stated, and you alluded to it a few moments ago, that basically we need an extra $30 million a year to run an appropriate program to maintain the core harbours. In relation to the operation and maintenance of small craft harbours in the budget, can you enlighten us again on the progress that you've achieved in relation to finding permanent funding for small craft harbours?

As we all know, as of March 31, 2007, the program as we know it now, for all intents and purposes, will end. However, I am more concerned about what happens beyond 2007. Can you give us some indication of how your efforts are being met within the department at the present time?

[Cal Hegge]

There has been considerable progress in terms of addressing various strategies to put this particular program on a more solid funding foundation. That has to be looked at--and I've alluded to this several times already--in conjunction with other funding pressures that this department is experiencing, whether related to the fishing industry or to other aspects of our mandate.

We have had at least one discussion with the minister on some general strategies we have developed. We are continuing to work with the minister and are getting his guidance in terms of how to proceed.

I think it's fair to say, however--and I'm not ruling this out as an option in terms of reallocating within the department--that the budgets right across our mandate are stretched, so it would lead one to the conclusion that logically the department needs new funding for this program. That is one option we will be looking at, but that of course would have to be subjected to the normal process.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

With the divestiture of harbours, low-activity harbours, inactive harbours, the merger of harbours, the mandate of small craft harbours at the present time, under the present arrangements, funding has been used basically to repair and maintain harbours.

I know in my own riding there are several communities where new developments are required, not necessarily repairs to existing wharves, but new developments, larger boats, different types of fishing activities. If we build a wharf going out here, instead of just adding on 150 feet to a wharf, we may need to develop something over here on the other side of the harbour. But with the restrictions of the current program, we can't accomplish that.

I'm just wondering, as you put your proposal forward to the department this time around, has that been considered under small craft harbours, perhaps as part of a new funding arrangement?

[Cal Hegge]

Yes, we have looked at the increasing usage of the harbours, for example, with respect to the aquaculture industry, first nations users, and other users of our harbours, which are creating increased demand on the infrastructure itself and in some cases arguing for increased infrastructure. So yes, we're well aware of the increased interest, and we are factoring that into the development of our options.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

I'd like to go back to the subject of harbour authorities, if I could for a few moments. I know how they're arranged now and how they're set up. Is there any thought being given to changing the mandate? I know I run into the problem--and I refer back to my own riding--of having harbour authorities that are made up of people who in a lot of cases are not involved directly in the fishing industry. Now, I realize the harbour authorities look at a broader scope of things, but is there any thought being given to...? Or I should ask if you are satisfied with the setup as it is now, in relation to the structure of the harbour authority itself and the role they play.

[Cal Hegge]

Taking into consideration some of the comments we've touched on in our presentation and in the discussion this morning, we're quite pleased with the contribution we get out of the harbour authorities. For one thing, it certainly saves us a number of employees that we would have to direct to the management of the harbours otherwise.

We have been giving some thought to how we could enhance the contribution of the harbour authorities. That would probably require some additional funding as well, but we have some ideas on extending their mandate. We obviously wouldn't go and add to their burden already when they're tired and trying to keep up with a heavy workload, but we have been giving some thought to being able to extend their mandate if we get some additional funding support. I'm really not at liberty to get into some of the details of that yet, but the committee should be aware that we are factoring in those considerations in the development of our options.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

I know in some conversations you'll hear the idea being floated of multi-purpose fishing harbours. I guess that has to do with expanding the mandate--I don't know--of the harbour authority, but indeed of small craft harbours themselves. Could you give us some idea of your guess in these costs and exactly what that entails?

[Cal Hegge]

I think it goes back to my comments earlier in terms of the increased activity, if you will, at the fishing harbours and how we can best adjust to that increased activity. It does link into the role of the harbour authorities, and in fact the particular role of the department, so all of those considerations again are being reflected on in terms of developing various strategies we would like to go forward with.