Fisheries Committee on April 18th, 2008

[Roger Savoie]

I think your position conflicts a bit with what Mr. Simms just said. There are larger boats and fewer places, so we need to keep those harbours and improve them in order to meet fishermen's needs.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

No, but the point is that if we shut down three harbours and improve one to the point where it could handle everything, everybody would go to that one harbour.

[Roger Savoie]

You talked about grain, but grain is on the earth. If your truck breaks down, you're safe. But when you're on the water, you may have to travel for hours on a bad sea. It's not the same principle as being on the ground, on the side of the road.

There's an issue of safety in having a small craft harbour in a place where you can easily access it. If you take that away, well, you put a life in danger.

[Samuel Larocque]

You say there are fewer boats. I would think that each and every one of you has an office, no?

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

Even more than one.

[Samuel Larocque]

You have a sizable budget.

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

No.

[Samuel Larocque]

Tomorrow, you all get to work in the same office. How about that? It is the same thing for us.

There are fishing conflicts among neighbours. Today, we have a conflict with our neighbours from Miscou and Pigeon-Hill. Do you think we will land there? I don't think so.

As my colleague Roger said, you work in the area of transportation safety. When you transport grain, your safety is assured. But we who work on the water are not safe. We've lost one of our colleagues from Miscou in a storm. We are in conflict with them, but we were saddened all the same. Death and safety are no laughing matters.

I think that to move from one wharf to another when the price of fuel is on the rise—it is costing us $1 a litre and will be costing $1.50—might lead to unexpected costs. Things are not easy.

Let's imagine that you are all in the same office tomorrow morning.

[Marc Paulin]

You talked about closing down wharves. I just had a discussion not too long ago with an employee from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, who asked me why we would not close down a wharf. Don't even think about it: the wharf is the soul of the community. Wharves have been there for generations and they will remain there forever. We will not stand for any wharf being closed, be it within our community or in Lamèque. We will fight for them.

If, for example, we went to the wharf in Pigeon-Hill, which is a community close to ours, it would not be so bad. In the fishing sector, we have agreements among us, and we get along well with the people who live in that community. However, if everyone had to share the same wharf, entire communities would suffer because there would be conflicts everywhere. So the issue of closing wharves should never be raised in a meeting.

[Rénald Haché]

Don't forget that each regional wharf is used to full capacity. If you close one, the neighbouring wharf will not have sufficient infrastructure or space to accommodate a higher number of vessels. So closing one wharf and expanding one elsewhere is not really a solution. There are no savings to be had by doing that. I think we must opt for repairs and good wharf maintenance. We would not be in this situation if maintenance had been carried out on a regular basis. But now, major investments will have to be made to maintain the infrastructure which is indispensable for the economy of each region.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Haché.

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Thériault, we're going to give you a couple of minutes if you want to answer Mr. Stoffer's question.

[Roméo Thériault, Autorité portuaire de Grande-Anse]

Thank you.

Mr. Stoffer, the reason I sat here is that I'm the mayor of Grande-Anse. It's a small community. Our wharf is desperately in need of dredging. Now you're talking about amalgamating the wharves together.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Remember, I started off by saying I'm playing the devil's advocate. I would not advocate this.

[Roméo Thériault]

That's right. Well, the devil's advocate a lot of times comes to be the Lord's.

This is not acceptable because of the location of each wharf. Mr. Savoie mentioned earlier the safety of the fishermen and the safety of pleasure boaters and everything.

I think the biggest problem with Fisheries and Oceans is that the people who are managing it are in the offices in Moncton. Those offices should be installed here in the north where the fisheries are, so they can see the problems every day. You talk to these people in Moncton, and there's never anything done.

It was the same thing when we had the project given to us three years ago by the minister at the time, Robert Thibault. The project is only half done, and it should have been completed by now. We had made recommendations to Fisheries and Oceans in the Moncton office, to Denis Haché, the director now instead of Charles Gaudet, that the northwest corner of the wharf be opened and the current left to enter and exit the channel. It would probably clean up a lot of this sand and prevent having to dredge, as was done in the past, thirty years ago, when that section was opened. Probably for a cost of maybe $75,000 to $100,000 versus $500,000 to dredge, we could rectify the problem, or help rectify the problem.

I appreciate the time to talk to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

Mr. Chiasson, I think you wanted to answer the question Mr. Stoffer made a comment on. If you want to do that now, you can.

[Aurèle Chiasson]

You're talking about small craft harbours, but in Lamèque, Shippagan and Caraquet, there basically are none. Heavy machinery cannot really be used to do that type of work on the wharves. It is much too big and heavy. Our port is designed to accommodate commercial vessels. You are talking about small craft harbours, and I know there are such harbours, but the larger ports around the Peninsula are located at Lamèque, Shippagan and Caraquet. These are commercial ports. I have nothing against the other ones, and I certainly hope they do find funding, but everyone is entitled to their fair share.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Allen.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank everybody for being here today and talking about this. I appreciate all the volunteer efforts that you make. In our small rural communities there are volunteers for many types of things. Even though I don't have any small craft harbours in my riding, there are a lot of volunteer things going on in many areas.

I want to ask three questions. The first one is on revenue generation. What is the method you use in your areas to raise money for fees for the wharves? It is very clear from the testimony you've given that it is not enough. And you can't get blood from a rock; I absolutely agree with you. What are some of the mechanisms you use to raise the revenue, and what does that cover? Does it cover just the bare bones, just basically electricity and utilities?

Could I have a quick answer on that one before I get to my second question?

[Aurèle Chiasson]

The Lamèque Harbour Committee derives its income from electricity and mooring fees, and from renting out unloading docks. This is paid for by users. Our revenues are the same as our annual expenses. Sometimes, at the end of the year, we have a deficit of $2,000 or $3,000 on the books.

We then have to wait until April 1 to collect our rental fees. Then the year starts again. The port committee has never had $15,000, $20,000 or $30,000 in the bank. We are being asked to fund 20% of the value of each project. So a $5 million wharf would require us to invest one million dollars, money which we will never have.

Thank you.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you.

[Paul-Aimé Mallet]

In 1996, when we created the Administration portuaire de Le Goulet, we had to develop a budget which included certain fees and then we presented it to the people who would eventually be using the wharf. For instance, fishermen had to pay mooring fees and lobster trap storage fees, as well as slipway fees. Other users included those who bought licences right on the wharf. However, year after year, because of the increase in costs, we had to present a slightly bigger operational budget. We are trying to get money where we can, but it is still not enough.

The Administration portuaire de Le Goulet employs a guard, a part-time wharf manager. We have a lot of expenses, but our revenues cannot keep up. As my colleague said, we had to invest a certain percentage in each project or repairs. The situation is such that even for a project of $5,000 or less, we are not turning to the small craft harbours program anymore. We do the repairs ourselves, especially those which are the most urgent.

Thank you.

[Samuel Larocque]

You talked about increasing your revenues. I will not take up your time by talking about administration.

I know that your income has gone up each year, but we are making less money from the fishery. We are making less money on lobster every year.

If we ask the fishermen for higher fees for their vessels, they treat us like we're the devil. With 68 boats and fees ranging between $250 and $300, that's not a lot of money. Further, we also have to pay for waste and spent oil removal, electricity, small repairs and snow removal. That's what's hard.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

The question I was asking was on the revenue that you actually raise and whether you do have a shortfall. You've kind of answered my question--you can't get any more blood from a rock. I absolutely agree with that. It is very difficult, and I just wanted to understand that.

The fact that we have to spend four hours in the same room with all these guys every week would suggest that I don't want to go that way either. That's enough.

The previous group that was here talked a little bit about dollars and the ability to help our volunteers, and if there was money, it would help from an administrative standpoint to have some administrative people who could help. Then there is the other side, the infrastructure and dredging.

So I know we'd like to have everything, but if you had to focus on the areas and put more money in one place or another, which would help the volunteer fatigue more? Would it be the investment in the infrastructure and dredging, or would it be focusing more on the administration? Which would benefit the volunteers more?

I'd like to have your opinion on that.

[Samuel Larocque]

When we are given money to repair the wharf or to undertake a major project, it certainly helps. The fishermen and volunteers on the committee are fairly happy with that. When we can complete one or two projects per year, that makes many people happy. As Mr. Chiasson said, if we have a wharf, the fishermen are happy. It's the soul of the town or village.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you.

This is the next piece. I found Mr. Chiasson's comments very interesting with respect to the yearly requests that have been made since 2000, and every time there is a new minister you have to keep reformulating your request.

Then dredging seems to be a common theme with this group, to a person. Dredging is a key issue.

What process changes would you suggest we make in DFO and small craft harbours? That seems to be operational. Dredging is a constant thing that you have to do, depending upon your location. What kind of process would that be? Would you set a five-year plan to say this is what dredging we're going to do and we don't have to reformulate it every year, and then we have the capital side? What process change would you say should be made so that DFO and small craft harbours could work smarter and plan that money better?