Fisheries Committee on Nov. 21st, 2007

[Luc Legresley]

Yes. For some reason, in the past the municipalities were not taxing the infrastructure. For example, if we had a shed or something like that, they were not.... But because the municipality needs more money, because they are also facing problems--don't forget the federal cuts, and the provincial officials are cutting the municipalities. Citizens are paying more and taxes and so on. In the Quebec region now, each harbour authority, if they own something and it belongs to them, will have to pay for it. One harbour authority in the Magdalen Islands--and I was told this two weeks ago--is going to have to pay $1,000 extra just for this year. But each harbour authority is going to have to do it.

I know in the Maritimes they have the occasion and the opportunity to have discussions, and they are not paying municipal taxes anymore, if I'm not mistaken, which is good.

I'm having some discussions with Natalie Normandeau. As you all know, she's a very important person within the Quebec government. She's open to discuss this situation. If she says no, my God, I don't know what's going to happen.

[Osborne Burke]

Just for clarification, in the Maritimes and gulf region you're basically exempt for the harbour wharf itself; however, if there are structures there, fish sheds, gear sheds, there is an assessment on the actual structure--but not on the piece of property; that's federal property. At one point we had the municipalities attempting to tax us, because they used to get a grant in lieu of taxes when the federal government had the facilities, although they still owned them, and we had taken them over as harbour authorities. But we were able to address that in the Maritimes and gulf region with all the provinces so that their legislation was adjusted--and Nova Scotia already had it. As long as there was public access, we didn't face the tax issue on the actual structures, which would have been impossible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Burke.

Mr. Allen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, gentlemen, for being here, as well as all your colleagues.

I'll try to keep to my time, just in case I want a wharf in my riding, Mr. Chair.

I do appreciate, Bob, your comments with respect to volunteer fatigue, because there's a tremendous number of organizations across the country, no matter what you're into, and you're really tapping the same people again.

When it comes to infrastructure—and I suspect the timing of the volunteer fatigue probably really started when the infrastructure started going downhill—when did the regions start to see the tipping point when this thing really started getting serious and bad and you started hearing a lot of flak from the people in the regions?

[Bob Baziuk]

That's a difficult question to answer. I think it's based on our national forum, this network in the NHAAC, and that's when we started hearing about it on a national basis. But I think you hit on it. When it starts to depreciate so bad that it causes the stress levels to go up, that's when we started to see all this. I don't know, it's probably in the last five to seven years when it really started.

Wood is biological, and if your wharves are wood and they start to deteriorate...once it starts, it's rapid. The deterioration really accelerates.

[Osborne Burke]

Just to add to that, next year will be the 20th year of harbour authorities. In probably the last 10 years we've had advisory mechanisms that we've put in place. As that process started there was the opportunity for the clients of the harbour authority members to begin to voice their concerns and bring their issues forward. So that would probably play a part in it, as well as when the infrastructure started to deteriorate and there was more and more stress. If you look at most of the harbour authorities, 20 years later there are a lot of the same people in the room, and they're getting tired.

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

In a previous incarnation of this committee in 2001, a recommendation was made that the federal government allocate $400 million over the next five years. I know we got $20 million per year over those five years and brought it up to speed. I have a couple of questions on that.

Was there any dredging component in the $400 million at that time? If not, how do you see these costs escalating?

I really appreciate that you're going to give us some numbers from your perspective. But when you look at budgeting for this kind of thing, how practical is it to do this in a five-year plan? We all recognize the human resource pressures of getting some of this work done. In reality, is it practical to say you'd spend an extra $100 million over the next five years? Are we going to be able to get the work done anyway?

[Osborne Burke]

We just saw the end of the five years with $20 million each year. We were able to work with small craft harbours, spend that, and make major improvements. Now it's permanently part of the A-base funding, so we're very appreciative of that.

I believe the ADM explained here on Monday that if you have $500 million on the table tomorrow, the reality is you can't use it all in one year. There needs to be planning and time to implement the dollars. But put the dollars there and spread them over five years or ten years. If there's a commitment from the federal government and all the parties to put the dollars there, I'm sure we can work with small craft harbours. In trying to do planning for individual harbour authorities, that all feeds into the recognition that we have to be better prepared.

We're always going to face the challenges of storms and environmental conditions. However, if $32 million is there on an annual basis there will be a will and a way to use those dollars to address, as much as possible in the timeframe, the challenges we have in different areas with weather conditions and limited times to do the work. A key factor is recognizing that it comes down to the planning.

So if the government wished to put the money on the table, I'm sure we'd gladly take on that challenge with our fellow partners in the small craft harbours program and be very happy.

[Luc LeGresley]

What worries me the most today is that for five years the government spent 100 million dollars. All of the money was well spent, I have no doubts about that. The regions were fighting amongst themselves in order to get as much money as possible.

Furthermore, one must understand that the work had been estimated at 10 million dollars but that it cost 4 million dollars. And so, with the 4 million dollars that were spent, will the structure be able to withstand the storms over the course of five or ten years? We would normally be expecting some 20 storms.

At Rivière-au-Renard, it was a 10 million dollar project, but they obtained a little more than 4 million dollars. The structure that was put in place will therefore stand up for some time. However, down the road, everything will have to be done over.

The 100 million dollars were so stretched out and reduced at one point in time that we are wondering if the work is sufficient to respond effectively to any and all circumstances, be it with regard to operations, to the needs of the harbour authorities or, most importantly, to the bad weather we are now seeing. The question must be put.

If today you are saying that you will be giving out 100 million dollars over five years, it is the same situation. However, if you are going to be carrying out work in fishing harbours, make sure that you are granting 20 million dollars if the cost is of 20 million dollars. Do not go putting 15 million dollars into the pot to save money when we know full well that what will be built will not be up to standard, according to Public Works and Government Services Canada or the engineers. We must be careful. At the monetary level, prudence is key. We can invest 100 million dollars in infrastructure elements that will not last 20 years as planned, but rather 10 years. This is where we have to be prudent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

That completes our two rounds. I'm sure we could spend quite some time on more questions and answers.

I want to thank the witnesses for your presence here today and your straightforwardness and honesty in your comments and answers. I realize this meeting was quickly organized, and we certainly thank you for your cooperation in assisting us in our work here as members of Parliament. I also wish you the best in the next few days here in your deliberations.

I would ask if there's an opportunity for Mr. Burke to give some closing remarks to the committee.

[Osborne Burke]

As a group, we certainly appreciate the opportunity to come here and speak to the members and answer the questions.

I guess, in summary, it is a program, the harbour authority program. I heard Mr. McGuire talk about the pride in the harbours. It's there, and it's probably a program that's second to none in Canada. It does have its challenges, and maybe it's not necessarily always dollars, but in infrastructure it is dollars. We're facing that.

I heard some talk about a budget allocation formula. That's better left to the bureaucrats in the department to decide when the dollars are there, in my estimation. Our focus is to get the federal government to put more dollars into that program. How the dollars are divided up, that's for another day.

Let's be clear to all the group here. We're committed, as a group, to doing whatever we can to assist in getting the government to make that decision to put the dollars there. How the dollars trickle out afterwards, we'll deal with that and the regions will deal with that. The small craft harbours regional directors, the director general, and the ADM can sit around...and they are probably better prepared to answer to some of the dollars and some of the numbers and to deal with the distribution of funds as much as they can, by realizing they have challenges as well.

Even now, with the dollars they have in each region, they don't have enough. If you look at our region or any other region, they may get several hundred major projects over $50,000, and that could be very clearly across the country. They only have limited dollars for their region to deal with. They have to make decisions at the end of the day, and you have to respect the decisions they make. However, probably 20 harbour authorities get some money and the major projects and the other 50 are quite upset and they're calling their local member of Parliament, saying “Where are my dollars?” I'm sure I wouldn't wish to be in the shoes of the small craft harbours program, having to sit there making the decisions as well. I think we can all collectively work together to put more dollars there for them.

Some of those dollars can be used to address and improve the training and the initiatives we have under way with the small craft harbours program, which will, at the end of the day, assist the harbour authorities. Where harbour authorities can, they are trying to work together if they're in a particular area. We have some harbour authorities managing five and six harbours, where possible. It's not always a reality that you can do that everywhere. But all those are tools that can assist with each one of the harbours, and overall, collectively, they contribute to the package. We're trying to find funds from anywhere we can find them.

I would just mention recreational harbours very briefly. If you have a launching ramp for your commercial fishing boats and you can generate an extra $1,000 a year in a little harbour because the local guys and community people want to launch their boats, well, that's great. On revenue generation, we're very creative in where we can try to find the dollars. Anywhere we can access those dollars to assist...because somewhere overall that helps everybody in the program, and that's what it's about.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Burke.

Thank you all again.

We're going to take a five-minute break to clear the table and we'll come back and discuss our other business.

Thank you very much.

[Proceedings continue in camera]