Fisheries Committee on April 18th, 2008

[Marc Paulin]

On Lamèque island. We put energy into these requests, but all we really do is to change the date on the documents and send them in again to Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The people at Fisheries and Oceans and at Public Works Canada know that the dredging has to be done in our case. They already know that dredging will be needed next year at Ste-Marie and Pigeon-Hill, and it will still have to be done in 2, 5 and 10 years.

So why do they not reserve money for dredging, since it is inevitable? It is mother nature at work. As a harbour authority, we could then get our second priorities up to the top spot. As things stand now, we continually have to insist on dredging. We have no choice because it is a priority, but we have a lot of other priorities as well.

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

Does anybody else want to comment?

[Aurèle Chiasson]

At Lamèque, there is no dredging to be done. All we need is money for a wharf. That is all.

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

Okay, so a new wharf.

[Samuel Larocque]

Mr. Allen, we have a dredging problem every year. I have been a fisherman for 27 years. I remember dredging being done every year since then. That is 27 years. I am glad that we get funding every year for that. Even the fishermen are happy. But as my colleague has said, why do we have to re-submit our request every year? We know that the harbour silts up every year and that we need money to have the dredging done. It has to be done every year.

Dredging is a priority. In order to dock at Le Goulet, for example, the dredging has to be done. The material that has been dredged up has to be put somewhere. There needs to be one system just for dredging and another one for other projects. We have to pay to get rid of the dredged material. An environmental permit is required. There is bureaucracy to deal with. There is a cost for removing the silt, and then the storms fill up the hole again. More money has to be spent, and the hole gets filled up again. What sense does it make? Out of a $200,000 budget for the dredging, PWGSC uses $25,000 or $30,000 for dredging by the end of the year. What about Fisheries and Oceans? Who do we turn to then? We go back to Fisheries and Oceans. That is how it works.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Mr. Coombs, I think you wanted to say something.

[Winston Coombs, Autorité portuaire de Grande-Anse]

Yes. I represent Grande-Anse, and I'm a fisherman myself.

I think a five-year plan would go very far toward representing the wharves and what you're up against for each one. A certain amount of money could go to the wharves every year. If DFO had five-year plans for each wharf, they could see what each wharf needed. They could issue so much money for each wharf per year. Some money is better than none at all.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you.

To Mr. Paulin--but anyone can answer this--earlier you said that they dredge your harbour each year just to cut a channel through. You mentioned that if they had a larger dredging project, you would be able to sustain three or four storms, or whatever the case may be.

What is the average amount of dollars spent on your dredging per year? Are you aware of the amount of the contract, ballpark figure? Has there been any effort to look at exactly what you're asking for, that being a major dredging job to alleviate some of the costs?

[Marc Paulin]

Dredging costs approximately $200,000 per year. It always depends on the weather. Where we are, a northeast wind always results in silting. If there has not been much wind from the northeast during the fishing season, there is no problem and we have water. But as soon as we have a northeaster, the harbour fills up.

One year there was money left over from the dredging budget. We have a breakwater, and we were able to dredge the area within the breakwater. That fixed the problem for a few weeks. Then we had some winds out of the northeast and we saw that the sand was spreading out instead of filling the hole. It is like snow. If there are four feet of snow on each side of your driveway, you shovel out the part in between. But as soon as the wind comes up, the cleared area fills up again. If a bigger area is cleared, it takes more time for it to get filled up. That is why people say that dredging needs only a small structure. Since we have $200,000, we manage with $200,000. But if we had more money, we could widen the opening and the approach to the wharf would be much safer.

The problem when boats come into the wharf is not just that they can hit bottom. What causes us the most difficulty is the wave action from behind. It pushes boats left and then right, and if you end up actually outside the channel it becomes particularly dangerous. It costs approximately $200,000 per year to remove the sand. The sand is removed and put up on shore, but it gets pulled back into the harbour over time by the sea.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

In some places we have visited, we have learned that installing a breakwater--and you mention that you have one--or doing some other work would alleviate the amount of sand that gathers in and out of the harbour. I'm just wondering if for your particular harbour there has been any thought given to doing something to alleviate that continuous dredging. If you're looking at $200,000 a year, is there a million-dollar project that could be done to alleviate that? Or is this sand always going to be a problem? Is there anything that can be done in that particular harbour?

[Marc Paulin]

There is a breakwater at the entrance to our wharf. If it continued further out to sea, where there is more water, boats could come in from several directions and go around the sand accumulating along the strand. However, the breakwater was built in two phases. It was supposed to be facing south, and another breakwater was to be built facing southeast, but while the work was underway, funding ran out. The builders abandoned the section that was suppose to be facing southeast and turned the breakwater further south.

The initial project was ultimately changed, and, as a result, we have a problem with the silting of sand. Engineers have told us that they built a breakwater to stop the sea. It's true that they stopped the sea, but the sand has created a serious problem for us. And as time goes on, the situation gets worse because the sand along the strand is now building up in front of the wharf. At some point, there won't be any water left.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you. I'm just looking at a photo of your harbour here now, thanks to technology.

Once again, I want to thank our witnesses for being here this morning. At each and every stop, we learn something new, and I'm sure my colleagues have learned something new from your time here this morning. I also want to thank you, on behalf of everybody, for the time and effort that you put into your communities as volunteers, understanding that it's not easy to deal with people who are looking for projects to be done when you cannot deliver. But certainly we applaud your efforts in that. Hopefully through the process of our study, we can present a report that will enhance not only the program but your opportunities to provide the services to the people you represent.

Thank you very much. We hope to see you again some time.

This meeting is adjourned.