Fisheries Committee on May 29th, 2007

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

If I understand what you said to our colleague opposite here, it sounds as if we've been losing ground on that. It could be $500 million now, or maybe even $600 million.

[Robert Bergeron]

Back then, about 20% of our core facilities were in unsafe to poor condition at the time. Now we are much closer to 28%, so of course the situation has somewhat deteriorated.

If we wanted to bring everything back to good condition today, it would definitely require more than $400 million. I think in 2004 we estimated that the $400 million was $475 million. So given the inflation in the construction sector and the conditions that have slightly worsened since that time, we would probably require in excess of $500 million now to be able to bring, all of a sudden.... We say over five years, because we know that it's unrealistic to think that it can be done in one year. Really, this is what we would need in order to repair everything back to standards.

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

Are steps being taken to secure that money? Have requests gone in to the last budget, for example, to Treasury Board and they've been turned down? That's what you asked.

[Cal Hegge]

As I said earlier, we have been in discussions. We continue to engage in discussions with central agencies around the needs of the program, and we will continue to do that.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Mr. Blais, please.

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

Thank you very much.

Now I'd like to address another component that I've previously mentioned on a number of occasions. I'd like to take advantage of the fact that we are starting a new study to update this subject.

Have you previously assessed how it might be useful to you for the department to accept the multifunctional aspect of a small craft harbour or wharf? Earlier Mr. Matthews said that the fleet had changed, but certain facilities are still considered as recreational harbours or marinas. In some cases, they are used for commercial, tourist and marine purposes. That's the situation that Anse-à-Beaufils, which is located in the riding I represent. So these are multifunctional facilities. In some cases, we're talking about two uses. Have you considered that way of looking at things, in order to eventually make it possible to provide funding? Multifunctional wharfs could increase harbour administration revenues.

[Cal Hegge]

I'm going to answer, and then I'll hand over to Mr. Bergeron.

We currently have examples of multifunctional harbours in certain regions. That's thanks to the efforts of the harbour administrations, that is to say that there have been commercial developments that have made it possible to make the harbours multifunctional.

But to answer the second part of your question, whether we have money or can invest money in that kind of initiative, I would answer that the situation is the same as in the past. The problem is that we don't have enough resources to keep the essential harbours.

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

Couldn't that be one way of submitting an additional funding request to Treasury Board? Usually, when you request additional funding from the department, it's for better maintenance in view of needs, of what you mentioned earlier. But it would be a new way of requesting additional funding, by presenting the situation in a different light. That might make it possible to inject additional money, but in a completely different way. Ultimately, we might manage to improve the situation in a more beneficial way because the idea wouldn't be to maintain a harbour facility, but rather to enable it to gain access to additional funding in order to diversify its product, and thus to increase its share of revenue. That's the point of my question.

[Cal Hegge]

I think it's a good idea to combine that perspective with our vision because, eventually, with the transfer of small craft harbours to the private sector, for example, greater emphasis could be placed on commercial developments. That could put requests and resources in a slightly different context. That's a good idea, but have we thought of that or is that reflected in our discussions with the Treasury Board or the Department of Finance? Not directly, because—and I'm repeating myself—we put the emphasis on the need to maintain essential harbours. However, in view of the fact that that could be part of our vision, I think it's an idea that deserves further consideration. I agree.

Would you like to add something?

[Robert Bergeron]

We're aware of the fact that a number of users are not commercial fishermen. When we present the program to our central agency colleagues, we definitely emphasize the fact that we are serving not only commercial fishermen, but also another commercial clientele, including agriculture, tourism and so on. So we definitely emphasize that factor when we have occasion to do so.

We also encourage the development of that clientele by the harbour administrations because it contributes to funding for the facilities. So it's beneficial for the viability of the harbour administrations. Where we hesitate somewhat is in investing in new structures specifically intended to serve a new clientele. We've just discussed the shortfalls for maintenance of the facilities we already have. So when it comes to making new investments, we are even more reluctant about the idea of serving another clientele than commercial fishermen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Merci, Monsieur Bergeron.

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Being from Alberta, I don't have a whole lot of questions pertaining to my particular region in regard to small craft harbours. I think they're all on Lesser Slave Lake, if memory serves me correctly. We do most of our commercial fishing in the wintertime, when the water is a little harder.

I do have some questions for you, though, in regard to small craft harbours on the coast, just as clarification for me. I envision, obviously, these small craft harbours being places that a boat of up to 40 or 50 feet in length could probably pull up to. I'm just wondering if you can tell me what's done at these small craft harbours from a security perspective. With a 40-foot boat, are we getting foreign vessels pulling up to these small craft harbours at times? Is there any scrutiny of what's being brought in? Do we have smuggling activity in some of these small craft harbours that are close to other nations' small craft harbours, for example, in the U.S. and so on, and obviously, some of the ones across from the fresh water?

I'm just wondering if you could tell me about some of those issues.

[Cal Hegge]

I personally don't have any information on that, but I don't know if Robert does. It's not an issue, or hasn't been. I would expect that the harbour authorities are looking after security in different ways, but we've not had any major issues of smuggling or drug running, or anything like that, that we're aware of.

[Robert Bergeron]

No specific cases have been brought to our attention. As Mr. Hegge just mentioned, the fact that we have harbour authorities at very many harbours is a real strength from that perspective, because these people are volunteers for the community, and the wharf, the facility, is very important to them. So they really check to make sure that they know what's happening at the wharf.

We now have close to 670 sites across the country that are managed by harbour authorities. There's no way in the world that the program could get that many people in order to have on-site attendants to watch the situation. So from that perspective, I think the harbour authority program is very useful.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

That's what I expected. We don't obviously have a manned DFO or a customs person there. Obviously we don't probably get a whole lot of international traffic; these are locally used. But in reality it could, in theory, happen. But like you say, there is obviously a vested interest from the local communities to make sure that their small craft harbour doesn't get turned into something that's a nuisance for the community.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I have a point of clarification on customs, Mr. Calkins. Any foreign boat entering Canadian waters is supposed to hail in to customs and go through customs prior to tying up at any wharf.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Understood, and I would imagine that there are specific ports of entry where foreign vessels are supposed to tie up. I'm just saying from a legal perspective or from a national security perspective, I guess it's always possible that somebody with the wrong intentions could utilize one of these. It's just a question I have. I'm not suggesting that it is happening or anything like that. I appreciate it. It's just a curiosity question, Mr. Chair.

The other question I have is maybe about getting a little bit more clarification. I know Monsieur Carrier brought it up. I was just curious about how you define a core fishing harbour versus a non-core. I'm just wondering, is it based on usage and is it based on commercial fishing? Or is it based on the needs of the aquaculture industry in the area? Is it based on the needs of sport fishing or recreational fishing, getting goods and services out to lodges and so on?

I'm wondering from that perspective if you could give me a little more clarification as to how the department has made the determination.

[Cal Hegge]

I'll ask Robert to add, but principally it's to support the commercial fishing industry. But there are of course other users.

Do you want to add something?

[Robert Bergeron]

Yes. Essentially we focus on commercial fishing, and a core harbour would be a harbour where there is a need to support commercial fishing. Also, usage is important. If there is a small number of vessels at one site and it would be possible to provide services to that small fleet from another facility that we have close by, that would be another consideration in deciding whether this site is going to be considered core or whether we're going to try to encourage the fishers from that community just to migrate to the facility next door.

But as I said before, we never take a decision just by ourselves. We will do this in consultation with the fishers involved.

In a situation like this, where there is very little activity, it's likely that the facility is in poor condition, and we'll have a frank discussion with the fishers from that community and say, “Look, given the funding of the program, we cannot really afford rebuilding a wharf just for the level of activity that it is right now. We can provide you a much better service if you accepted to migrate to the community next door.”

So the bottom line is that we serve commercial fishing, and the level of activity is a consideration.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Are there any other questions?

Monsieur Blais.

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

Further to what Mr. Calkins just said, I'll give you a very specific example.

The wharfs of Shigawake and Port-Daniel-Ouest are located 2 km from each other. The Port-Daniel-Ouest wharf is considered non-essential, whereas Shigawake is deemed essential. The Port-Daniel-Ouest wharf might be used by eight fishermen, which might represent approximately $1 million in landings a year. Unfortunately, the Port-Daniel-Ouest wharf is so deteriorated that it has been virtually unusable for a number of years now. There's a different way of doings things. If we allocate less money to a non-essential wharf, we ultimately force fishermen to go elsewhere. That's also part of the game. So the Shigawake wharf is overworked. We recently installed floating bridges there to receive all those people.

We had two harbour facilities, one deemed essential, the other non-essential, and there was a change in clientele. In actual fact, the two wharfs are not enormous. We're not talking about harbour facilities requiring investments of several million dollars, as is the case in other locations. In that sense, I think the evaluation whereby one wharf is declared essential or not could sometimes be reassessed. I understand that sometimes the evaluation is sensible, and that's good in the medium or long term. In other cases, however, in the very specific case I referred to, for example, I get the impression that there the matter should be re-evaluated. The people who use the Port-Daniel-Ouest, or Marcil, wharf and the people at the Shigawake wharf are different. It's possible to do a re-evaluation because these aren't big amounts. The Shigawake wharf would be under less pressure, and the Port-Daniel-Ouest wharf could be usable again without investing a major amount of money to overhaul it.

In that sense, we can find solutions that don't necessarily cost a lot of money, but that would make it so we have two essential wharfs. We would be pleasing everyone without having to invest large amounts of money. I've had the opportunity to write to the minister about this matter, and I mention this example to you to show what the story of an essential wharf can be. Are you open to those kinds of proposals?

[Robert Bergeron]

In principle, decisions should be made based on the most economic way to provide good service to the commercial fishery. If it is more economical to maintain two small sites with quite limited facilities, and if we are able to provide good service to the commercial fishery in that way, perhaps it's more advantageous to do that. I think we have to ask ourselves what the cost of the repairs is, in the case of Port-Daniel-Ouest, among other things, and what the cost is to add pontoons at Shigawake in order to provide good service to the commercial fishermen in that area.

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

Now I'd like to talk about this dredging issue. People tell me things, and the conclusion is as follows: if the breakwater were extended, dredging wouldn't have to be done year after year, or after a few years. Have you evaluated that? I know that dredging is less expensive than installing a breakwater, but if there were no more dredging to do, the breakwater could eventually be a financially viable operation, but spread over a few years.