Fisheries Committee on May 29th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Now we'll go to Mr. Matthews.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Thank you. Yes, it is very annoying.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Well, I pick it up myself.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

I pick it up regularly. Anyway, you've dealt with that, hopefully.

Harbour authorities, I want to talk about them for a bit. I guess the principle with the establishment of going to the harbour authority model is that at some point you want them to be self-sufficient. Am I correct in that, or is that a pipe dream, from your point of view?

I work very closely with them. I sort of know the revenue average that they're able to take in by the number of vessels that use their facilities, the fees collected and so on. Is it still your objective that some day harbour authorities will be self-sufficient and you would sort of be out of the business, or is it your objective or your aim or I guess the feeling of the department that there'll always be a mix of your involvement?

I'm trying to understand what your thinking is on that. When I look at the harbour authorities I deal with, the harbours, their revenues, their potential for revenues and so on—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Excuse me.

We really have to watch our BlackBerry use, here, gentlemen, and that goes for staff as well, because you can pick it up in the microphone.

Thank you.

I apologize for interrupting you, Mr. Matthews.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

That's all right.

I'm wondering where you are with that, or is it a pipe dream?

[Cal Hegge]

I don't think it's a pipe dream, and it is part of our longer-term vision. We can all kind of guess when we might reach that ultimate vision. To be fair, I think it's quite a few years into the future.

As I said earlier in the presentation, we believe that this is the direction to go. We believe quite forcefully that the harbour authorities are in a much better position to, quite frankly, do a better job in terms of dealing with the issues in supporting the fishers in their regions.

It's a bit of a Catch-22 situation that we find ourselves in today, however. Part of their increasing independence, if you will, relies on having fairly sound or fairly safe reliable harbours. It's very difficult for us, nor would we push them, to generate higher revenues when the core harbours are not up to the condition we would like. If and when we achieve that state--and we have some examples of this--then they will be able to generate additional revenue; they will be able to contribute more and obviously take more pride in being able to do that, in at least the minor maintenance of their harbours.

Ultimately, and this really is kind of a stretch into the future, could we see a day when some of them might actually own the harbours? I think that anything is on the table. We'd have to look at that very closely. We certainly wouldn't want to walk away from a commitment. We'd want to make sure that the scenario and the context were proper and the conditions were proper for that kind of situation to evolve.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

That's sort of my own view as well. I don't think I'm going to have to worry about too many self-sufficient harbour authorities in my time, not only in politics, but in life. It's a good objective.

I guess there are demands on your budget--and the same is true when I look at my own province. In addition to the natural erosion of infrastructure, etc., and insufficient funds over the years to keep things up to par, one of the biggest impacts on your budget that I want to ask you about, which has caused additional pressure, has been changing fisheries. In our own province, we had the cod fishery collapse. People went to bigger vessels and became more mobile. I look at harbours that a number of years ago were not all that active. At certain periods in the year, you could walk across the full harbour on the decks of vessels because they moved the fish. What impact has that had on your budgets? All parts of the country can have impacts similar to what we've had, and that must be a tremendous strain on your resources, I would think. I know in my own case it has been.

[Cal Hegge]

I think that's a fair comment. The evolution, if you can put it that way, of the use of the harbours has put additional budgetary pressures on the program. Just to name one example--and you may be alluding to this--with some of these changes and increased usage of the harbours by first nations, or the aquaculture industry, or the fishers themselves, in some cases an overcrowding have been created. We're cognizant of that.

In an ideal world, we would have sufficient funds to address that, and hopefully some day we may, but in the meantime our priorities rest, quite frankly, with getting the core harbours up to a safe reliable condition and divesting the non-essential harbours. We are aware of the changes that are coming about through increased usage, just as one example. It is in that way putting even more pressure on our limited budget.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

What I found in a number of my harbours is that in addition to the deterioration of existing infrastructure, we've got larger vessels and more of them. Then there's the demand for additional tie-up space. So you've got two problems. One is that what you have you want to keep up to scratch and keep in fairly good condition, but in addition to that, the harbour authorities are crying for expansion and extensions. It's very difficult to deal with. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on that. How do you deal with that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

You're going to have get those thoughts next round, Mr. Matthews.

We'll go to Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'm not a usual member of the standing committee; that enables me to ask questions that are simplistic, but that must nevertheless be asked.

What strikes me in your presentation is that, for a country whose motto is “From sea even unto sea,” the fishing harbours issue is very important. Furthermore, you admit at the outset that additional funding is necessary to maintain essential harbours. So I immediately see an inconsistency.

There are essential harbours, but we lack funding to maintain them. You moreover show that a little further on. On page 5, you emphasize that there is a funding gap of $32 million for harbour maintenance as established in 2006.

Is the fact that you don't have the necessary funding a recent phenomenon, or has that always been the case? Did the change in government in 2006 alter the situation? Why is there currently a funding gap? When you compare $32 million to all spending on weapons and overseas military intervention, you wonder why we don't maintain essential harbours, particularly if you consider the economic consequences for the country and the social consequences being experienced by my colleague in the Magdalen Islands and Gaspé. I don't have that problem, being a member from the Montreal region, but I feel all the pressure that must be on our members in areas where there are a number of fishing harbours that have not been adequately maintained by our government, which does not lack for money, because it has been posting unbelievable surpluses for a number of years now.

I would like to hear your explanation. Have the ministers of Fisheries and Oceans applied the necessary pressure to obtain that funding? I'd like to have your viewpoint on that.

[Cal Hegge]

Thank you for your question.

I can say that the funding gap problem has been around for a long time. I would say it's been about 10 years, even more. We evaluated the situation of our small craft harbours in 2002. That analysis showed that there was a genuine lack of resources. The percentage of small craft harbours in poor condition was 20%. The figure has declined since 2002. The problem has been around for a long time. We don't know the exact amount necessary, but, as you mentioned, it's between $32 and $35 million. There is no connection with the government in power, because there have been a number in recent years.

As our minister has mentioned on a number of occasions, this program is very important for him. We're working in close cooperation with the Treasury Board and the Department of Finance in order to find additional funding for the program. I think that, in general, it's a question of government priorities. You are correct: we are convinced that the program needs more funding, but that decision is in the government's hands. We are happy that $20 million has been added to our permanent budget. In addition, $11 million was added to our budget last year, and we are entitled to that amount this year. However, there will be a small $3 million reduction next year.

We received funding last year, but it wasn't enough. I don't determine the government's priorities. Officially, we are working very hard to prepare arguments in support of new funding.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I can see that. Thank you. That will definitely be part of a recommendation by the committee following its study.

I wanted to talk about your vision for small craft harbours, which appears on page 4. There's no timetable anywhere. It's as though it were a long-term vision. Wouldn't it be useful to have a timetable? You usually set a timetable for the purpose of achieving an objective. I'd like to know why there is no timetable or scheduled target date for the vision of efficient and professional harbour administrations that you want to establish.

[Cal Hegge]

Our vision is based on the budget required for the program, but we currently don't have enough funding. So it's impossible to establish any kind of timetable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Hegge.

Mr. Lunney.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am trying to reconcile some figures, looking back at the standing committee's report of 2001 on the number of harbours that were in existence versus what we're reporting today. I see from the Library of Parliament document that was provided for us....

Do you have a copy of the document the Library of Parliament has produced for us?

[A voice]

No.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Can they have a copy of that?

It has figures in it, anyway.

Going back to 2001, the committee report stated that we had about 1,300 harbours in total at that time, and about 800 were active fishing harbours.

I'm looking at annex A in the titles you have today—that's a nice picture of the country. We're looking at 1,189 total harbours, with 742 and 447. Are those numbers correlating with the 2001 numbers of 1,300 and 800?

[Cal Hegge]

I would say probably they are, given that we've divested of some harbours since the earlier timeframe.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Yes, and it seems from what I've seen in this document that we're divesting about 15 to 25 harbours a year.

[Cal Hegge]

Yes.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

I see that it was recommended by the committee in that day that it would probably take $400 million over five years to bring the harbours up to snuff. I see the government's response from the day was that they had put in about $20 million a year for each of the next five years plus $40 million for rust-out, or about $8 million a year, I guess, over five years. So the government's answer was about $28 million a year to address that problem?

I suppose it's hard for you to answer that because you don't have those numbers in front of you.

[Cal Hegge]

I was just handed something. I don't know whether that's....

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

I'm looking at page 4 of the Library of Parliament document.