Fisheries Committee on May 31st, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I call the meeting to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are continuing our study on small craft harbours.

Welcome to our witnesses, Mr. Goulding, Mr. Kathan, and Mr. Bouchard. Welcome, gentlemen.

Mr. Goulding is going to start.

[Bill Goulding, Regional Director, Small Craft Harbours, Newfoundland and Labrador Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Do you have a brief presentation?

[Bill Goulding]

I have just a few opening remarks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

That would be fine.

[Bill Goulding]

Okay. Great.

I certainly want to thank members of Parliament for extending this invitation to us to be here and contribute to your review of the small craft harbours program. We certainly value and appreciate your interest in the program.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, the fishing industry accounts for almost one-half of the fishing vessels. And almost one-third of the landings in the entire Atlantic fishery are in Newfoundland and Labrador. We've got 26,000 people employed in the province in the harvesting and processing sectors.

With respect to small craft harbours, there are 376 fishing harbours and one recreational harbour in Newfoundland and Labrador that are under the responsibility of the small craft harbours. A total of 246 of these are being managed by 204 harbour authorities. This represents fully 35% of the harbour authority-managed harbours in Canada that are located in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As another point of interest, within four ridings in Newfoundland and Labrador--of which Mr. Matthews' is one--fully 33% of the harbour authorities in Canada are in these four ridings.

We know that small craft harbours is a valued and important program in many coastal communities. It serves as an important and visible aspect of the federal government's presence in those communities. I don't need to tell members that.

I know there are a number of national program challenges that were outlined for you on Tuesday and I won't go through those. I'll just focus on perhaps one that's of particular significance in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that's that we certainly have a large number of small and medium-sized harbours. This is very much the product of our geographically dispersed fishery over a large coastline where it's not always practical, reasonable, safe, or economically viable for that matter to insist that a small group of fishermen move their operations even 10 kilometres or 20 kilometres to a different location.

Vessels are getting larger and that's certainly placing demands on the program in Newfoundland and Labrador for new and enhanced infrastructure, for harbours with deeper bottoms as well. But at the same time, we still have, and need to maintain, our large number of smaller harbours.

One thing that's unique about rural Canada is that MPs certainly have to be closer to their constituents, as the federal level of government touches rural citizens very closely. And I guess we see that with the role small craft harbours play in coastal communities.

We're certainly pleased to be here to have this opportunity to participate in your review.

I'll just ask my colleague Mr. Gervais to make a few remarks.

[Gervais Bouchard, Regional Director, Small Craft Harbours, Quebec Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to comment on the program and on the issues facing Quebec.

Quebec is divided into four main regions. We have a network of 55 core harbours, 27 fishing harbours where there is little or no activity and 32 pleasure craft harbours that we have to divest over the next few years. Our budget for 2007-08 is $8.9 million for the Quebec region. Approximately 93 per cent of the commercial fleet in Quebec uses the Department of Fisheries and Oceans harbours, and approximately 2 per cent of the fleet uses the Transport Canada ports for commercial activities.

We are facing some very significant challenges regarding core harbours in Quebec. The weather and the age of the infrastructure—on average between 25 and 35 years— mean that there has been significant deterioration of our facilities and a very low rate of recapitalization. So we have some rather significant problems, particularly as regards safety.

There is no doubt, in light of our current financial resources, that we are having a very hard time keeping operations safe in all locations. With respect to core harbours, there are problems with investments and coordination, and some of these harbours cannot be closed down. We are having a great deal of difficulty coordinating the closing of non-core harbours because of investment capacity difficulties. So we face many problems, including user dissatisfaction because of safety and accessibility issues in inactive harbours. This is a result of the low rate of recapitalization.

I would like to turn now to another important issue for Quebec—pleasure craft harbours. We have 32 of them to divest. The socio-economic considerations are extremely important. These harbours are located between Quebec City and Montreal and require significant investment. The municipalities, particularly those located between Quebec City and Montreal, are more and more interested in taking over these facilities, but it is very difficult to finalize the agreements because of a lack of funding.

There are 42 harbour authorities in Quebec that are quite viable. We maintain good, harmonious communication with these harbour authorities. Some 500 volunteers work in the fishing harbours in Quebec. Although these volunteers are quite dissatisfied with the level of investment, I can tell you that communication between them and the department is very effective.

That is the situation in Quebec.

Thank you for your attention. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[Al Kathan, Acting Regional Director, Small Craft Harbours, Central and Arctic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to address this committee.

I am the acting director for central and Arctic region. Although I am acting at this time, I have worked in the program for 18 years. I had a lead role in the development of the “Nunavut Small Craft Harbours Report”.

The region consists of four provinces and two territories. In 1995, the central and Arctic region had 516 harbours. Today, we have 218. Of those, 165 are recreational or non-core and 57 are commercial fishing harbours.

Our challenges can be grouped into four primary areas. Firstly, our fishing harbours are located across a large geographical area, in often remote, aboriginal communities . Due to the travel distances and timing to fly into some of these communities and shortage of staff, the small craft harbours program has a limited capacity to provide adequate service to the harbour authorities and the consistent level of service that others expect. This is a major contributor to the fatigue of harbour authorities in the central and Arctic region.

Secondly, less than half of the commercial fishers in the region are supported by small craft harbours' facilities. Consequently, many of these fishers are required to use unsafe infrastructure. Small craft harbours has identified approximately 16 sites where there would be at least 25 or more fishers who could use a harbour facility.

Thirdly, and this has been on the agenda for more than 15 years, there's an existing significant commercial shrimp fishery in Nunavut and there's a very significant emerging turbot fishery. Nunavut has asked the small craft harbours program to construct harbours in seven communities. These harbours would provide the people in Nunavut with the opportunity to pursue a commercial fishing business, their fisheries, and other economic opportunities. An independent study concluded there would be significant socio-economic benefits if these harbours were constructed. Very importantly, this would provide the boaters in Nunavut safety for their vessels and for their lives.

Fourthly, the region has a large number of non-core harbours to divest, primarily in Ontario. Many of these harbours are large. They're located in waterfront communities. As a consequence, they're often the focus of the community and they provide the only or the primary access to the waterfront. The costs are increasing because many of these facilities have not received any repairs since the early 1990s and many of the facilities, and by that I mean the floating docks or some wharfs, are at the end or nearing the end of their useful life. Costs are increasing as municipalities are also concerned with the long-term affordability of these harbours.

In addition, the remaining harbours to be divested are a little more complex because there are some property issues that we haven't dealt with or are difficult to deal with. Increasing consultation with first nations community interests as a result of Supreme Court decisions is making it a little more time-consuming. Some of these harbours are former industrial harbours and they have some contamination and liabilities with it.

Thank you very much for letting me give you this brief introduction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, gentlemen.

We'll go to our first questioner, Mr. Matthews.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to welcome our witness this morning, and especially welcome Mr. Goulding, from the Newfoundland region.

Good to see you here, Bill.

I want to say to you what I said on Tuesday, when the other witnesses were here, that in my time in Ottawa representing a rural riding of coastal Newfoundland and Labrador, I found you and your staff to be exceptionally good to work with, understanding full well the pressures you're under regularly.

You alluded to the changing fishery and the number of harbours and harbour authorities we have in our province. On the changing fishery that we've seen big-time in our province in the last 10 or 15 years that is demanding greater tie-up space, deeper harbours, and so on, have we caught up with the requirement that's been caused by a changing fishery or are we still a ways away from meeting that demand because of the larger vessels being more mobile and so on?

[Bill Goulding]

I think that certainly some progress has been made in that regard, but there's still a lot of work that's left to be done. There are some big harbours on the northeast coast--Old Perlican is one that comes to mind--where the depths in the harbour are not adequate to meet the.... It's turning to be very much a centralized harbour where the larger vessels are going, but it still doesn't have the adequate water depth to be able to safely access it in all seasons.

Progress is being made, but there still are some very significant gaps. As much as there is a need for resources to fulfil our life cycle management responsibilities, there still are a significant number of enhancements and improvements that are needed within Newfoundland and Labrador just to give fishing vessels a safe and accessible place at which to berth.

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

Thank you.

One other thing Mr. Manning and I talked about on Tuesday was the need to get the projects rolled out as early as possible because of our short construction season. We get into bad weather and so on. Then we talked about the engineering component. I know from personal experience with harbour authorities and your people that we rely pretty heavily on other engineering services from other departments, like Public Works.

Do you find in Newfoundland and Labrador that your work sometimes is slowed down because you rely on another department for their engineering expertise? Would it be better if you had your own engineering shops that could move things along for you?

[Bill Goulding]

I think it's an issue of having an appropriate balance. Public Works and Government Services Canada provides specialized engineering construction project management services, and I think they do that very effectively. I think it's a matter for us as the program managers to make sure that we're applying them to the tasks that they're best equipped and most able to do. In that regard, there still is a piece of the project spectrum, the low dollar amounts, the less technically complex projects, that we should be able to do quite effectively in-house without the need for significant resources from external third parties.

So I think it's about having a balance. We're working in the small craft harbours program on a functional review at this time, and one of the things that I think is going to emerge from that is the idea that perhaps it's not one or the other, but it's about having the appropriate balance and that each of us in our regions find the right place for that. I think there's room in Newfoundland and Labrador for us to grow and become involved in project implementation ourselves, and at the same time have Public Works focus on the more technically complex and the more challenging work, which is still quite significant.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Mr. Cuzner, would you like to take the rest of the time?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you very much. And I'm thinking as Billy was throwing the bouquets there's a dredging project somewhere has to get done.

Do you find there's an increase in the number of derelict boats being abandoned in some harbours because of the cost of having them disposed of, the implications with environmental liability? When Mr. Murray was here, I had asked the question as well about a specific incident, an issue in my riding.

Generally, do you see that, and where can we go with that? In two different harbours now boats have been abandoned. They're a bit of a risk to navigating the harbour and they're unsightly and what have you, but it's trying to get the action and trying to have them dealt with. I'd like your comments as to where we are with it now. And do you see it as being an increasing concern?

[Bill Goulding]

Well, it's my experience--I'm somewhat familiar with what's going on across the country in addition to my own region--that it seems like a problem that is emerging more often. We have a case in our region now in Bay Roberts in Mr. Manning's riding where there are two Lithuanian trawlers, 180 feet long, 750-tonne vessels, that have been abandoned there and they've been there for a period of five years. We have exhausted and used a fair amount of resources trying to get the owners to take some responsibility. We reached the point of examining the options. There are legislative powers, in our case in the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act, that allow for the seizure of those vessels, which is what we eventually did. But it was something that was done with some reluctance after all other avenues had been exhausted.

I see it as an emerging issue. Ultimately, the vessel owner is responsible, so we work on a smaller scale with harbour authorities to ensure they have berthage agreements, that there are provisions in there that the insurance can be in effect that could allow for if these things are abandoned.

We are seeing it as an increasing problem, and I think it probably requires some coordinated effort between a number of departments to really, truly address the matter. I'm speaking probably out of my area now, but there's a Receiver of Wreck who has responsibilities under Transport Canada. There's a legal issue. There are environmental issues related to ocean dumping. It's not as simple as just scuttling a vessel any more, perhaps as it was sometime back, which is all a good thing. There are implications for these things, so it is a complex issue with legal ramifications.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

I find the small craft harbour guys on the ground want to deal with the problem as well, but they don't have that stick to get it done. They've come in, taken out any of the fluids, and tried as best they can to contain any kinds of impact that it might have, but they just don't have that stick to get it done and get it dealt with. I was just wondering if you guys experienced the same and if you see an increase.

The other question I want to ask is on centralizing the harbours. I still think there are a couple of harbours that may have been divested that, in retrospect, even small craft harbour personnel believe should still be in the mix. In the scoring system that you use, if the number of boats in the harbour is not high, then the chances of getting access to work and money becomes more and more of a problem. Still, just the sheer placement of some harbours as being a safe haven or a safe harbour.... I'm just wondering how the scoring can be changed to better accommodate the smaller harbours. How can it be better weighted to accommodate some of the small harbours? Many of the small harbours are still essential, necessary for safety reasons or what have you. The big harbours seem to get the lion's share of the attention in our riding.

[Bill Goulding]

I'm not sure that I would agree that smaller harbours are necessarily neglected.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Not neglected.

[Bill Goulding]

Not neglected, but there probably could be more attention paid to them. For instance, there's a priority ranking system with respect to projects, and certainly harbour activity is a factor there. And the smaller ones, without as much activity, would perhaps not rank as highly. Once again, it's about balance. Sometimes if the activity is not that high, but if the needs are relatively modest or enter in the big scale of things, then perhaps a business case can be made.

We have cases where a harbour perhaps has facilities that are at the end of their life and there's an alternative nearby. You probably won't be familiar with the Frenchman's Cove and Garnish situation. I know it's a big stretch to move to another location, but when you look at the.... If the needs of the harbour that was divested were relatively modest compared to the level of activity there, maybe there would have been a business case for retaining it in the inventory. So I think--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

We have to balance the time, Mr. Goulding, so we're going to have to revisit this at the next questioner.

We'll go on to Monsieur Blais, s'il vous plait.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, gentlemen. I will start with the easy questions. Mr. Bouchard, you said that the budget for 2007-08 was $8.9 million. What was it last year?

[Gervais Bouchard]

The budget was slightly higher than $8.9 million. It varies from year to year, chiefly because of the capital budget. The amount can vary. The operations and maintenance budget remains relatively constant, if we include the dredging budget. In the case of capital projects, the amount may vary from year to year. I can give you the exact figure. Last year, the budget was $9.8 million. This year, it is $8.9 million.

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

There is always the forecast amount in the budget and the amount that is actually spent. If I look at a chart covering the period from 2000 to 2006, I see there was an increase each year. For example, in 2005-06, the estimated budget was $10.9 million and expenditures totalled $12.1 million.

Does this mean that the same thing will happen in 2006-07? You say that the budget was $9.8 million last year, and the actual expenditures were $12 million. This year, the figure we see is $8.9 million. Why is it the number increases during the year? How does it work?