Fisheries Committee on June 5th, 2007

[Matthew Bol]

Let me look at our report where we had an exhibit that tried to summarize all this information we collected, and I'll refer to Norway. What we said there was that the fisheries were important to that country but declining in importance. In that country there are 14 large, multi-purpose harbours and many local fishing harbours of unknown size--the people I talked to in the central government in various departments did not know.

Regarding the ownership of those 14 large, multi-purpose harbours, I described them as semi-autonomous authorities. Then I described that local fishers owned the small fishing harbours. The operation and repair would be the same as the ownership. Fees and charges were set by the local harbours, the larger ones. In the small boat fishing harbours, they might have been set by fishers. But the central government focused on only the 14 large harbours and they really did not know what was going on in the other harbours.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

So there was no discussion of a cooperative or anything like that between fishers and processors? Did you ever find anything like that in any of the places you looked at?

[Matthew Bol]

Norway was the worst case. I was most surprised that I couldn't find the information, and if I did find someone, they didn't know about what was happening at a local level. I came to the conclusion, after a lot of phone calls, that the central government wasn't involved and didn't know what was going on.

In Iceland there are 60 harbours, quite large--200 to 300 boats per harbour; 13 large, multi-purpose harbours. The ownership is local government; operations and repair are local government; fees and charges are set nationally, collected locally based on tonnage. On capital funding, central government does fund 60% to 75% of the capital funds, and they have a very centralized capital planning system.

I think I described it in more detail, because I thought that was important. On page 6 of the report it says the federal government, through the Icelandic Maritime Administration, plays a major role in funding harbour works. It reviews the financial statements of each harbour annually as part of funding requests by the municipalities. A four-year capital plan is prepared every two years. So it's forward looking.

Municipalities submit project proposals, which are evaluated against a set of well-defined standards through the use of a computer program. The plan is submitted to the Althing, which is the parliament in Iceland, for approval. The use of specific evaluation criteria and a transparent review process apparently results in few changes in the list of projects provided to the parliament, according to our interview. Only five of 130 projects were changed in the last plan, according to my contact.

So you go from one extreme, Norway, which is not involved, to a very elaborate system.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I guess it might be fair to say—I'm not sure what the tax system is like in Norway—that one could assume that these docks, you say, in these small craft harbours were owned by the fishers. Is that the conclusion you came to, or is that an assumption you made based on the fact that there was no federal government involvement?

[Matthew Bol]

No, it was very clear from the people I talked to that the ownership was local, by the municipality. And I would think there are probably only two layers of government in that country--municipalities and the central government.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Being owned by fishers and being owned by the municipality are quite different things, though.

[Matthew Bol]

I'm sorry. I think for Iceland it's the municipalities that own the harbours.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

Thank you, Mr. Bol.

[Matthew Bol]

Could I make one more comment on Iceland?

I had commented there, because we had looked at policy challenges and changes where possible, that in Iceland

...the fishing industry is not directly subsidized. The federal government is developing a policy whereby the larger harbours would be provided more autonomy to set fees, subject to government regulations. In turn, they would have to fund a greater share of capital funds. Therefore, there would be increased funding for smaller harbours.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Thank you.

With the indulgence of my colleagues, I'll ask if you referenced in your opening comments that you're a recreational boater.

[Matthew Bol]

Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

You mentioned you've been to the east coast, I believe?

[Matthew Bol]

Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

I think you've gathered by now that I may represent Stephenville. You may have determined that. I represent the great southwest and south coast of the province. I've felt for some time that we need some strategic harbour facilities for people like you.

[Matthew Bol]

Right.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

I'm just wondering what you look for as a recreational boater, say, that a fishing harbour wouldn't have, because when we had our director in the other day, I thought he said we have one recognized recreational harbour in Newfoundland that falls into small craft harbours inventory.

What do you look for that's different, say, if you're out sailing about somewhere? Just so I understand, if you're going to Newfoundland, what would you be looking for?

[Matthew Bol]

It would be an easy way to get there.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Yes, but you're going on the ocean, so that doesn't bother people like you.

[Matthew Bol]

Yes, right. I'm a bit of a fair-weather sailor.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Okay. All right.

[Matthew Bol]

What would I look for coming into a harbour?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Yes.

[Matthew Bol]

First, that it has good protection from the elements. It has, for a recreational sailor, probably good facilities so I can go and shower. Next is probably that I can get some good provisions nearby. Third is probably that it has a couple of nice restaurants and maybe a good bookstore I can go to.

Kingston is a good example of a good destination because it has many amenities. To me, it has become too noisy, and I don't go there that often.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

I raise the question because I've felt strongly for a number of years, representing that area of the province, that there should be....

Everyone can't have a good recreational harbour--it wouldn't sustain itself--but strategically, you referenced Maine versus Newfoundland; you said Maine has a great recreational boating industry or whatever, and you compared it to Newfoundland. If we had those kinds of facilities, regardless of how they were funded, would we see an increase in the industry?