Fisheries Committee on May 31st, 2007

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Okay.

If you were to look at the replacement value in Newfoundland and Labrador today--and I'm just going to specify Newfoundland and Labrador--that addressed the concerns we have.... You mentioned that we have around a $26 million budget. Is that what you said?

[Bill Goulding]

This year it's $26.5 million.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

I know there are five-year plans in place, but is there a dollar figure that your office has to address the overall concerns?

What we're trying to get at, I guess, is part of our process here is trying to show Treasury Board that we need more funding in this particular department, and more specifically in small craft harbours. There was a request, a passage of a motion in 2006 in the House--unanimously, I understand--to look for an increase in the budget. Can you give us an idea of what exactly we need in Newfoundland and Labrador to address the concerns we have?

[Bill Goulding]

When you look at the budget for $26.5 million there this year, you have to recognize that $19.9 million of it is for major projects. That's projects over $50,000. There's also $2.4 million in there for minor works. So you're looking at $22.4 million going into the infrastructure. The additional amount there goes into things that are not necessarily targeted at a specific harbour, whether it's harbour operations and overhead and salaries and the costs related to the administration of the program. If you just use the $20 million figure--call it the project business volume that's going on in the Newfoundland and Labrador region forecast for this year--that's a part of the total budget. In small craft harbours, $82 million this year is going into projects.

There's been a life cycle management study done that suggested that $114 million is needed to properly maintain the asset basis there. That would be an additional $32 million. I look at Newfoundland as being a quarter of that. I would say we went from $20 million to $28 million; that would be our portion of this. You could say a major project budget of $28 million in Newfoundland and Labrador would put us on a better track with respect to maintaining and keeping up the inventory.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Addressing the concerns that we have.

[Bill Goulding]

Yes.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Thanks.

On the information I have, and we discussed it here before, in relation to dredging, what does that fall under? In my riding, there are always several requests for dredging. I know in a lot of cases over $50,000.... Should we be looking at...? With regard to divestiture, and I'll get to that in a moment, there's always the ask, that we have a separate fund for divestiture, because we take it out of the regular fund now, and we have a lot of divestiture concerns. In regard to dredging, should we be looking at a fund in itself to address the dredging concerns? It doesn't seem to fall in under.... It just seems to be dealt with--when it comes, it has to be dealt with--but that's taken away from actual construction.

[Bill Goulding]

I always more or less look at dredging as just another investment that you need to make to either maintain or construct a harbour in the first place. I like looking at it in the context of the overall picture, and when each of us does our priority setting for the year, dredging is usually the first thing that is looked at. There's maintenance dredging, in other words, infilling. I know you have a number of harbours in your riding where there's some periodic infilling that can occur. And there's capital dredging, as we call it, to actually accommodate larger vessels that are more centralized and use harbours that are not accessible right now. Dredging is very much the first order of business, I would think, when we put together our project plans, knowing that if you can't get into a harbour you're not going to get very far.

I know Quebec has significant dredging. We're maybe somewhat blessed in Newfoundland that our dredging needs are not as extensive as they are in other regions.

[Gervais Bouchard]

Maybe I could add something to that.

We have a very big problem in Quebec region with dredging because we spend between 30% and 40% approximately of our maintenance budget on dredging. That's had a very bad impact on maintenance projects. But we receive from the small craft harbours program at the national level a special allocation--I think it's $400,000 each year--to manage that problem in the region. Dredging is a very large problem, and we realize that dredgings are increasing and the costs are increasing too. That's another financial pressure for us.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

I want to get back, Mr. Goulding, if I could, to the timing, and I think Mr. Matthews raised it, in relation to contracts. Right now this year's plans haven't been announced yet and we're heading into June. I'm not putting the blame on anybody for that. I'm just saying that we're looking at projects being announced some time in the next month, hopefully, and contracts being awarded well down the road. Then we get into a case of most of the construction going on pretty well in the wintertime.

I'm sure, and you can elaborate on this, that by working on a wharf in the months of July, August, or September, it would save us a considerable amount of money, rather than trying to work on that wharf in January, February, and March. We're looking at a $20 million budget for Newfoundland. If we could save $2 million a year, which would be a small amount.... Having the projects coming out earlier in relation to when the work would be harder--even in September, three or four months before Christmas--could save considerable dollars. Are there any suggestions on how we could go about addressing that concern, or at least trying to correct it, even if it does cause some short-term pain until we get things straightened out?

[Bill Goulding]

To contribute to that, I think it points to a need for good planning. You can't overemphasize the need for having good planning--having the upfront work done; recognizing that the fiscal year cycle and the project conception to implementation cycle doesn't really all fit within one fiscal year. So any project has multiple fiscal years almost inevitably. You need emphasis on doing the necessary field work; understanding user requirements as effectively as we can; having the necessary structural condition work, soil work, geotechnical surveys, sounding surveys, wave studies, and all that stuff done upfront.

You have to remember too that significant time is inserted into the project implementation cycle by the regulatory process--I'm not speaking ill of it, but it's a fact of doing business--whether it's the required environmental screenings, approvals under the Navigable Waters Protection Act or the Fisheries Act, habitat provisions that have to be complied with. There could be ocean dumping in a permit. There could be gazetting in the Canada Gazette, public notices on certain things, provincial regulations that we comply with. So the lead time into a project is very significant.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

We'll never get a wharf in.

[Bill Goulding]

Right, and let alone the tendering process, the NAFTA requirements, and the whole project cycle. That's one thing I know.

Let me get back to a point that was made earlier, why sometimes your projected budget is off from your final expenditures. Small craft harbours is very much significantly running a marine civil infrastructure construction program, and there's public tendering involved, so there are so many....

When we put our best estimates forward, and I think somebody here would be familiar with it, sometimes projects—and we don't like seeing this—can emerge without a lot of planning necessarily having been done up front. Sometimes the need to make the public announcement means the back-end work may not necessarily have been done, so we have to try to.... It all comes down, in my mind, to having good planning. With good planning we can manage these constraints to make sure the work is done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you for that, Mr. Goulding.

It's a big job to build a wharf, but you only have a short time to answer the question.

We have to go to Mr. Cuzner.

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

Bill had to excuse himself; he had a dredging project he had to announce.

My colleague Peter had asked a question about Canso. I thought Mr. Murray put forward the case for Canso. I want this to be on the record that Canso was a community that was built on the groundfish industry, and when the groundfish dried up it had a tremendous impact on that community. The union at the fish plant continues to hold 200-and-some-odd names, 225 names at the plant. For the last however long I can remember, the most they've had working there is about 70 people.

But Bill Barry is not looking at processing any fish there this year because he'll play that “we need more quota” game, and we're all aware of that. As far as being a healthy, vibrant, viable, and successful inshore fishery, Canso continues to have that. They're working now with small craft harbours people in doing a significant project at the Canso wharf. That's a very active fishery and a very successful fishery, and will continue to be so.

Colleagues around the table, don't get the impression that there is no fishery in Canso. What is happening is that Bill Barry owns the plant there and he's not processing any fish there. And for the 70 people who have worked there part-time over the last number of years, it doesn't look as if there's going to be work there, so they've been pursuing work elsewhere. Would we love to have some fish there to process? Absolutely. Still, the fishery within Canso remains a very healthy and vibrant fishery.

I'm going to pass that over to my colleague.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Mr. MacAulay, do you want to pick up on the Canso question?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

No.

Thank you very much, and welcome, gentlemen. Truly, if attending to your interests would help us get more funding, I intend to do all I possibly can.

I understand the department intends to re-evaluate the formula for allocating funds to the different regions. Are you people involved in this? I'll ask Mr. Bouchard this question: Are you involved in this, and what difference do you think it will make? I would like to offer my services to help in any way possible, if you change the formula.

[Gervais Bouchard]

We are involved in a process to....

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Do you think it will change much?

[Gervais Bouchard]

We don't know at this point. I think we have to work on that to find what criteria there are, maybe the good ones for the future of the program, and in which way we are going to allocate the funds in the future.

But you know the challenges are very big. We have a lot of challenges to face, and that's why it's very important to look at the formula and to address this problem. As Mr. Hegge said on Tuesday, he said in a few months, I think, but we have to work on that. We work on that as a team; a team is preferable, and each region is involved in the process.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

But you don't see a big change?

[Gervais Bouchard]

We will see at the end of the process.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

If there were any big changes, I would be very interested in hearing about the big changes before they take place, for sure.

Mr. Goulding, you have been involved in this for quite a period of time. I heard Bill talking about the engineering aspects and Public Works, and I thought it would give you an opportunity, which you didn't grasp, to capture more for your department, but you didn't do that, which is wonderful.

You've been around during the changes that have taken place, when the harbours went to harbour authorities. I would like you to spend a moment and indicate how you feel about the harbour authorities, what part they have played. Has it made a difference in the costs of repair in small craft harbours when you put the harbour authorities in place? There was a lot of opposition to that when it took place—and I have to say I wasn't on the plus side of that ledger either—but obviously, in my opinion, for what it's worth, I think it's a lot better. I'd just like you to elaborate a bit on that.

While you're at it, you could indicate, as Mr. Manning mentioned, there was a motion put through the House that I think would re-establish the $20 million—I don't want you to elaborate too heavily—plus $15 million, and all members supported that. Has that motion been fully adhered to? I'd like you to answer that question.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I appreciate that question, Mr. MacAulay. I'm sure when you get your next round they would be pleased to answer, but they'll have to hold, because we're 30 seconds over time now, and I know Monsieur Asselin has a very important question he's trying to ask.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

You are quite right, Mr. Chairman.

The committee has been studying small craft harbours for several weeks now. Unfortunately, we will be adjourning for the summer break soon. We will resume our work in the fall and we will be hearing from witnesses from all over Canada. We will also have to travel to see the situation for ourselves and to consult with fishers, volunteers and harbour authorities.

Mr. Bouchard, Mr. Blais and I need you to help us to do a good job in our work on the committee. As Mr. Manning was saying, we are also going to have to convince the minister. He thinks he does not have enough funding for small craft harbours. I am quite sure that you know as well that you need money to bring small craft harbours up to standard in Quebec.

How much should we be investing for the next five years? The minister expects an answer from us. We will be submitting a written report to him on our consultations. So, before starting our tour of Canada and Quebec, I would like to have this information.

I represent the riding of Manicouagan, which extends from the Betsiamite River to Blanc-Sablon, close to the Labrador border, and includes Anticosti Island. I can also add Fermont and Schefferville, but that is not relevant here.

For my personal enlightenment and that of the committee, I need an accurate picture of the situation facing small craft harbours in Quebec. I don't want one that dates back to 2004. I want an accurate picture that is as up-to-date as possible for the committee's benefit. I would like to know which small craft harbours will be repaired, divested or demolished in 2007. I want to know what the situation is regarding the ports that will be repaired, those that will be divested and those that will be demolished. I do not know whether it is difficult for you to provide us with that information by sector. I don't think the problem exists in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, in Montreal, but I would like to know what the situation is in the Gaspé, on the North Shore, in the Magdalen Islands and on Anticosti Island.

Consider the following example. There is a small craft harbour owned by Fisheries and Oceans Canada in my riding. For four years running, departmental officials have come to Rivière-au-Tonnerre and announced that the plan and specifications are ready and that some tenders have been received. However, the work has not been done, despite the fact that this year there is money in the budget. We are trying to get some answers about the status of the work on the wharf in Havre-Saint-Pierre. The same thing is true on the North Shore, between Kégashka and Blanc-Sablon. You know, these are fishing villages. Wharves are critically important to the region.

Mr. Bouchard, for my own information and for that of the committee, can you tell us what is going on in my region? Is there a three-year plan? What is going to happen this year? What will happen next year?

I have been quite brief and quick, Mr. Chairman, because I want to leave some time for Mr. Blais. I'm appealing to your considerable generosity.