Fisheries Committee on June 5th, 2007

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

Do you see merit in the committee travelling to some countries? And is there a country or two that you think would have practices that we should have an opportunity to see up close? New Zealand, because we're so similar....

[Matthew Bol]

If I could come along, yes, I'd really recommend quite a few.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Matthew Bol]

And I'd really love to get to New Zealand. I'm a recreational sailor.

I was very impressed with the organization and the planning mechanisms that Iceland used. There they have harsh climates. There the fishing is important to the economy. I thought they had some novel ways to fund their harbours.

I was very impressed by their officials. I recall talking to both harbour masters and government officials and thinking, wow, these guys really know what they're doing. In some sense, they don't have as many harbours, of course, as we do, but it's important to them. They have really harsh climates and weather conditions.

So if you were in the region of Iceland—well, I guess it's not really a region—I think Denmark and Norway are interesting, but again, the central governments are only dealing with larger harbours there.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Blais.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, sir.

My first question is about the political aspect of small craft harbours. In your experience, from what you have seen abroad and from the analysis that you have done, I wonder if you can tell us, on a scale from 1 to 10 or from 0 to 100—pick the one you prefer—whether the subject of small craft harbours is not politicized, sufficiently politicized, or too politicized.

[Matthew Bol]

I think you asked me to rate something on a scale of one to 100, and then I heard a question about the degree to which it's politicized.

For an observation on “politicized”, if that's the right term, I can give some general impressions from what I have seen not only in small craft harbours but other capital-intensive endeavours that governments get involved with, whether that's at a federal or a municipal or a provincial level.

Typically, for geographically dispersed requirements for capital projects, the process is onerous, and I do believe it has been, at least in the past, very politicized. It's people trying to make sure their harbour, their port, receives the appropriate priority for funding. It may or may not always be the most rational approach.

I guess I would prefer a system I saw in Denmark, I think, one that allows for longer-term financial funding.

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

As you well know, Canada is a federation: we have a provincial level and a federal level. The federal level acts as the arbiter, and, in the final analysis, it is the central government that decides on funding allocations. Here is the question I was wondering about. Is it not possible to come up with another formula that would take a little bit of the politics out of the choices? These should be based to a greater extent on something other than political considerations, which can, when you come right down to it, muddy the decisions that are made.

[Matthew Bol]

I would agree with you strongly. I think harbours development should be based on good, rational principles of cost and benefits and less involvement of government, as our report hinted and suggested, and we talked about local ownership, whereas today the federal government owns it.

I would strongly encourage local ownership and operation with a clearly defined process that spans a number of years on funding primarily capital developments. Whether that's done through the federal government or at a provincial level, it needs to be somehow broken away from a yearly cycle of appropriations where the poor small craft harbour manager doesn't know what money he's getting at the end of the year. He doesn't know what the long-term funding might be, so how can he make good decisions on the long-term viability of any harbour? That could be changed at a central level.

I would agree with your statement on depoliticizing it.

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

Does Iceland come closest to this management or funding model? Is there a country with a formula that approaches it?

[Matthew Bol]

Iceland reassured me it was done at the local level. Then they had a process of regional associations.

Let me back up. The various harbours would identify what development they would need for the next two to five years. This was then presented to regional fishing associations and harbour associations, and this was eventually all rolled up to the central government against very clear standards and criteria. Once at the bureaucratic level it was all organized and then presented to their parliament. I got the impression it was approved at a very high level. It usually was not changed. The priority didn't change because of political considerations.

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

Is it your impression that the first step to take, the first thing to do, is to commit sufficient funds to rehabilitate the infrastructure? You can have a wonderful management model, but if what you have to manage is completely dilapidated, the model is not worth a lot.

[Matthew Bol]

I would agree with that. If there aren't sources of funding, particularly for infrastructure like small craft harbours, to get sources of capital funding to ensure you had your facilities, then it's a rather frustrating exercise.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Thank you, gentlemen. We'll continue in the next round.

Mr. Lunney.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you all. Welcome to our committee. We appreciate your coming today to share your expertise and what you learned.

I want to go back. Your report was originally prepared in 1999, a few years ago. At the time you investigated various other countries, did you also visit harbours in Canada as part of that, or did you just go on briefings provided by the department to prepare?

[Matthew Bol]

The study was all done out of our offices here in Ottawa.

Personally, I have visited harbours in Canada even when I was a youth. I grew up in southwestern Ontario, so I knew the fishing harbours at Kingsville, Leamington, and Wheatley quite well. I used to go swimming there and jump off fishing boats, and I have visited the east coast a number of times. I'm a recreational sailor, so one of my hobbies is if there's a harbour, I want to go to see it--in Grand Manan and places like that, in fishing villages around P.E.I. and Nova Scotia. But it was more for personal interest than anything else.

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

Okay, I appreciate that.

In your earlier remarks you mentioned something about the average of 45 boats per harbour. I just heard that go by, and maybe I didn't quite grasp it, but were you talking about the Canadian average? Is that what we currently have with our small craft harbour program? Is that the Canadian average?

[Matthew Bol]

The Canadian average in 1999 of small craft harbours used for fishing was 45 fishing vessels calling those harbours home.

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

Do you have any idea how that would compare with today? Obviously, your study was done a few years ago, but do you think it's changed significantly—or would those figures still be somewhat relevant?

[Matthew Bol]

I don't know that.

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

Fair enough.

One of your recommendations was that small craft harbours should consider innovative financing schemes for capital projects, including direct loans, loan guarantees, and revolving loans. Could you expand on that? Or do you feel that any of those recommendations were implemented?

[Matthew Bol]

I don't know about implementation of loans. The other governments had mechanisms for loans, and those were typically state-level governments in, say, Oregon or Maine. The applicability to Canada at the federal level may be more problematic, but we thought it might be worth exploring. I'm not sure, in the present context of the federal government, whether loans would be an option or not, but I think they could be explored.

Again, I think the British essentially had a semi-removed fund from government, set up with a large pot of money, and loans were distributed from that. Then, as loans were repaid into what I would call a revolving fund, there could be some separation from the annual tyranny of capital funding. Going back to the annual tyranny of capital funding, I see it happen at the federal level, the provincial level, and the municipal level, where our priorities are not for capital but something else, and capital budgets get cut and maintenance isn't done—or the O and M budgets or capital budgets get cut, which are usually separate.

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

So one vision, you're saying, might be that the government could establish a base fund, call it a trust fund or something—a harbour trust fund, for example—

[Matthew Bol]

That's right.

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

—and make loans available, which would be repaid and go into other.... And qualifying harbour authorities could draw on those resources and perhaps use them to leverage funds?