Fisheries Committee on Nov. 26th, 2007

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

Could you answer the same question?

[James Boland]

It's always been a challenge to have a legitimate window to do the work, so planning is the key. We'd like better, more relaxed regulations within our own department to assist us in that regard. But we're stuck with the regulatory requirements from Treasury Board, so that's a little bit of inflexibility for us. Planning is critical. We, as well as Jackey's group, do five-year plans. We work with the harbour authorities to get them to initiate other kinds of funding sources so that they can either do preparatory work or things in place of the crown's work. It's a mixture, depending on the project, the capability of the harbour authority you're working with, and the season you have in which you can do the work that you need to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

Mr. Valley.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses.

You probably noticed I have just been subbed into the committee. I'm a long way from a harbour. My riding is almost in the dead centre of Canada. Just a few kilometres outside of it is actually the dead centre of Canada. In my riding of Kenora we do have lots of infrastructure that at one time was under DFO control, but it's probably part of a lot of the facilities that have been gotten rid of or deleted.

My colleague asked a couple of questions about core harbours, non-core harbours. I wrote down an east coast example, but the west coast is similar. Of 557 harbours, now there are 284 core facilities on the east coast.

We know you're under budget challenges and so on, when decisions are made and when you take an existing facility out of a category like being a harbour you support, or a core harbour.... I think you said now there are 322 on the east coast and 284 are core, meaning that the rest of them will be gotten rid of or removed from that. I'm not sure what term you want to use.

How are those decisions made? When you have a harbour situation that's not going to fit into your core categories, your core business plans, or whatever you want, how is that decision arrived at? Is it arrived at with the communities?

If I were a small town and facing something being removed, can you tell me how you would bring about that discussion on either coast?

[Jackey Richard]

Going way back when, we created our first harbour authorities 20 years ago. Most of our harbour authorities were formed in the early nineties, after the freeze was lifted. It was a long process, and decisions weren't made overnight.

It's a matter of consulting with the community, not just once but on many occasions, to look at harbours within the broader area, to look at the fishing activity, and to try to determine what is best, not from a government standpoint but from a community standpoint, insofar as where there are concentrated activities and how we can best support the critical needs of the fishery with the infrastructure available.

As time has moved on, fast forward 20 years later, we've been operating with our core for the past 10 years, if you will. It was a long process--a lot of consultation, and frequent consultation. At the end of it, I like to believe it was a community decision.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Boland, do you have any similar thoughts?

[James Boland]

Divestiture, to me, means that if it's principally a recreational harbour, the mandate is to look after the commercial fishing industry, so we will divest. That's what's been happening in Ontario. The majority of those harbours have been recreational harbours.

The second step is that we seek interests in the community, if someone wants to take it over as part of a harbour authority process. So it's up to the community to decide whether they want to manage that on behalf of the crown or recognize that if no one wants to step in and manage it, we're going to divest it. The question is given to the community and they have ample opportunity to decide what they want to do with that harbour.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

From my own experience, the question isn't always quite that clear. The question is this: we're backing out of it; is anybody going to pick it up?

As an inland commercial fisherman myself, I've held licences for 35 years, and I know it's not in either one of your jurisdictions, but support even for the inland fisherman has gone totally. Facilities we normally would have used in the past are no longer around. That's not a question to you. That's just a statement from somebody who was involved for many years.

Again, I'll go to the east coast, because I wrote down your numbers, but of 322 existing harbours, 284 are core harbours. So there is a list that is going to be taken out of support. Are you waiting for some local entity to step up to the plate? I'm not sure if I got that correctly.

[Jackey Richard]

As to the difference between the portfolio and the core, some of the 30 or 40-odd sites are actually being de-scheduled. There is no infrastructure there, so it's an administrative process and it's just a matter of getting them off the books. For some of them, it's just a matter of taking out the dead infrastructure. For the most part in those facilities, there is no activity.

When you go back historically, when we divested the 200-odd for those harbours, there were harbours with a strong recreational component and very little fishing component. So those were transferred to community groups and whatnot, and some were transferred to local fisher associations where there was interest.

Insofar as what we have left to get off the books is concerned, there is not significant activity there.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Valley.

Mr. Lévesque.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In its 2001 report, the Committee noted that fishing harbours had been allowed to deteriorate and required immediate repair to the point that many had been barricaded or were subject to various kinds of usage restrictions. This seems to be still the case today.

How many harbours in each of your regions are subject to either partial or complete restrictions on use because of inadequate maintenance? I would also appreciate it if you would identify those ports for us.

I would also like to know what the proportion is of the obligations you have to the Aboriginal harbours in each of your regions, in percentage terms. I believe that in the Maritimes, you also manage the Lower North Shore. We know that there are no roads to serve those regions. Mr. Boland also mentioned that on the Pacific coast there are essential harbours that have no road services. I would like to know the proportion.

That is all for the moment.

[James Boland]

From British Columbia, I'm pleased to say that all our ports are either in fair or good condition. So we don't have any that are barricaded. We don't have any that are not being utilized.

[Jackey Richard]

With respect to Aboriginal communities, 44 percent of our infrastructure supports that clientele. These are not just traditional fishers. There are also Aboriginal communities that fish, as well as aquaculture in the areas around our wharves, as I mentioned at the beginning.

With respect to our infrastructures, 66 percent of our infrastructure base is at the end of its useful lifespan, of its sustainability.

We have barricades. We believe that about 26 percent of our infrastructure is not in good repair and presents us with major challenges. While the situation has not improved since 2001, I believe it has probably stayed the same. But since that time there has in fact been further deterioration and more pressure.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Are there any where you have had to suspend activities because of disrepair?

[Jackey Richard]

Barricades? Yes. I don't have the figures in front of me, but I can find them in my papers. We have a lot of structures where the barricades are causing more pressure on the other facilities there.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

What is the economic contribution of small craft harbours to local communities in each of your regions?

[Jackey Richard]

That is a somewhat difficult question to answer. There are $1.1 billion in goods landed in the Maritimes and the Gulf as a whole. There are also $300 million in goods that come from aquaculture. The amount of revenue, including the contribution from processing plants and local employment, is not something I have at my fingertips, but the contribution to communities where we have facilities is quite significant.

[James Boland]

We've provided to the clerk seven studies that you folks have asked for, economic generation studies that we've done in British Columbia. The most impressive one that I have seen suggests that for every dollar the crown invests in a harbour, there's $50 in spinoff benefits throughout the local community. So they are economic generators.

We're just updating the regional report we did in 2004. We're signing the contract when I get back tomorrow, and we'll be doing an updated economic report on that for the end of the year.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Lévesque and Mr. Boland.

Mr. Stoffer, please.

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

I just want to reiterate. You said that for every dollar the small craft harbours program has invested, you get $50 in return. Is that correct?

[James Boland]

It was that $50 is generated within the economic base of the community.

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

It seems rather strange, then, that you would divest yourself of that. It's a hell of a money maker for the government, isn't it?

[James Boland]

Yes.

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

Okay, thank you.

Sir, I want to thank our researcher for this following question. This is for you, Madam Richard.

The department has indicated that harbour authorities have access to other federal sources for funding. Is ACOA part of that aspect of funding for harbour authorities?