Osborne?
Evidence of meeting #47 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was region.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #47 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was region.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Member, Maritimes and Gulf, National Harbour Authority Advisory Committee
I believe with the small craft harbours staff and the public works department and with the harbour authorities, we've had a lot of time to plan, as we said before this committee in the past, and there's been a lot of planning and a lot of preparation done. Even with that, you have a tendering process, and you'd probably be the first to say that we need to make sure the government follows the proper tendering process. All that takes time to put in place. But believe me, when the project's announced, the harbour authority and the small craft harbours staff and public works department are doing their utmost to make sure it happens as timely as possible. From a local point of view, we're the watchdogs. We're there; we're working with them. It's a team effort in trying to make sure we get everything done.
Could some of them happen sooner? In some cases, we're having dredging where you have to mobilize and demobilize equipment and bring it in long distance into isolated areas. You could have delays in getting materials, ordering materials. All those are always challenges, but overall I think they're doing an excellent job with what they have. There's been some additional staff put in place. There are still staffing issues, but considering what's there, I think they're doing a hell of a good job together. I'm hopeful that the $200 million will be spent and that we'll find a few more additional dollars before our two-year timeframe is up.
4:05 p.m.
Member, Central and Arctic, National Harbour Authority Advisory Committee
In our immediate area, there was nothing pressing that needed to be done, so in the area where I'm from, there are no major projects that are being done. I do know that projects are prioritized and have been for several years before the announcement of this fund. It appears that they are advancing with things in the order that they were prioritized way before the fund was announced. I know there was a lot of engineering done before that $200 million was ever announced, so as far as I can see from the way things are advancing, they are going according to plan.
As far as the tendering process goes, the only things we've been involved in at our harbours have been smaller projects that we've been able to look after locally without the assistance of small craft harbours Winnipeg. So I'm not really....
4:05 p.m.
Member, Pacific, National Harbour Authority Advisory Committee
In the Pacific region, I think you have to remember too that of the $200 million, only a third of the harbours were actually affected by that money. So two-thirds of the harbours are still waiting for money for projects.
As the president of the harbour authority, it's my job for sure to make sure that our planning process is appropriate, so we work on five-year plans. We make sure that any projects we need are on the books, so that if money does come along, small craft harbours can respond. I don't think there's anybody who doubts the dollar value that the small craft harbours directorate provides in projects that they do. It has excellent staff right across the country.
As a harbour authority, we can only do so much. We prepare our five-year plans, and we're ready to go if the money is available. Then it's up to them to decide which projects they're going to do.
4:05 p.m.
Member, Quebec, National Harbour Authority Advisory Committee
Ben mentioned that one third of the port authorities or harbour infrastructures were affected by the $200 million. But just because a third of the port authorities or harbour infrastructures are getting funding does not mean that the fishing harbour problem has been resolved. Tomorrow, we might say that all small craft harbours still have safety issues. We need to be careful when we talk about one third or two thirds. In some places, ramps have been built, but the wharf beside it might not be safe.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank you, gentlemen, for coming. We always appreciate hearing from you. We get straight answers to our questions, and we always appreciate that.
I want to take the opportunity as well to thank you for your work. We certainly do acknowledge the good work that the harbour authorities do. In fact, we're always very impressed when we're out there or when we're talking to you here with the investment that you make on our behalf. We realize that, and we do want to thank you for that on behalf of the government.
I'm going to split my time with Mr. Allen, so don't let me go beyond five minutes if possible.
I want to thank you, Ben, for the point that you made. I think it's a point we may have missed so far in our study, that we need to do a better job of consulting when there are fish management issues that will have an impact, or ocean issues that will have an impact on the small craft harbours. I think we do need to keep you in the loop there better than we've done.
I want to follow up a little on Mr. Blais's line of questioning with respect to how work gets done. We've heard along the way that it would be helpful to the harbour authorities if the $40,000 limit were increased perhaps several times, to maybe $200,000. I think that's a figure we might have heard in our travels. I just wonder what you think about that. Would that help you get your work done and perhaps get more bang for the buck in the dollars that are spent?
4:10 p.m.
Member, Pacific, National Harbour Authority Advisory Committee
Thanks.
We've talked at this table before about the $40,000, and the thing we have to realize is that $40,000 doesn't do much of a project any more. Most of the time what we have to do in the harbours is take a project and break it down into pieces so that we don't exceed that limit. Through the NHAAC process, we came up with what would be a suitable number, which would be about $200,000 for projects for harbour authorities.
I'm in a small community, and it's very important to my community that we be able to do our work and do the projects in our harbour with community members. We would like to keep that money. We don't want to see Public Works come in with their bids. We would like that competition to be within our community.
We do need to get that number up there. Forty thousand dollars is not enough. Of course, in my previous testimony we did ask for it before, and it was reduced when we asked. Maybe I should ask for it to be reduced and maybe it will go up. I'm not sure what the strategy is here, but clearly we do need to get it up to a reasonable level where harbour authorities are able to manage their own projects.
If you want bang for the buck, that's the best way to do it. We all realize that.
4:10 p.m.
Member, Maritimes and Gulf, National Harbour Authority Advisory Committee
Just to add to what Ben said, the $40,000 is not $40,000 to start with, because it's inclusive of HST, first of all. In reality it is about $34,800 or somewhere around there. That may not be exact.
Second, the $40,000 was set way back when, which is probably not keeping pace with the cost of inflation, the cost of materials, and everything these days.
Third, we definitely need that raise, because in many cases it's the harbour authority putting out the tenders. We can get it done just as effectively with supervision from either Public Works or private engineering and hire local contractors, put local people to work where possible, and take on jobs that are within the abilities of the harbour authorities, because those can vary from region to region and even within regions. I think if you want an efficient use of dollars, somebody has to convince Treasury Board to understand.
In addition, harbour authorities have a proven track record with small craft harbours, with over 20 years of delivering on them and being very mindful of the funds, because we're all taxpayers too.
4:10 p.m.
Member, Quebec, National Harbour Authority Advisory Committee
I think that before we increase this amount, we need to make sure that the work will be done according to standards. A floating dock, for example, is a minor job, but in Quebec there are no floating docks. Our tides are quite high. This is also true in the Maritimes.
Personally, I wouldn't like to be given $200,000 to do something that I have no experience doing. Of course, in Quebec, construction standards also need to be considered. Some work cannot be done there, while it can be done in other regions. The $200,000 can always be given to someone with the skills required to do the work. The work will be very well done in that case. However, the same amount could be given to somebody who will do a much bigger project that won't last as long. The quality of the work will perhaps not be the same. I think it's important to make this distinction. You cannot give $200,000 to just anyone. The individual has to have the skills required and be able to ensure that quality work is done. That is important.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Good. Thank you for that.
I'm out of time. I was going to ask a follow-up question, though: Do you see any sort of negative aspects of raising it? So I think that's a good point, Luc, at least a caution there that it needs to be spent well if it's higher and to make sure those things are in place.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. I do appreciate the straightforward answers. It's very good.
Luc, I just want to start with you. In your document, where it talks about situations and questions, it says, “Wharves for divestiture are located near cultural sites or in villages, and since many of those wharves have been abandoned, the effect is not esthetically pleasing.” And the question is, is it normal for the federal government to allow those structures?
I want to ask a question about the A-base funding, because each of you has talked about that, and I'm sure everybody sees that kind of thing for these wharves targeted for divestiture. We're going to be looking at the department and making a report here, but what are your thoughts on the ground about this?
Given that budgets are so tight, and Morris, you've asked for two wheelbarrows full, maybe you should ask for half and maybe you will get a full one, using that same theory. But would you be concerned that budgets are so tight that expanding that mandate would result in difficulties at the core fishing harbours?
I'd appreciated any of your comments on that.
4:15 p.m.
Member, Quebec, National Harbour Authority Advisory Committee
The wharf you are talking about is located in my community.
Approximately 14 years ago, when we started work on this file, we were talking about approximately $250,000 to $300,000 in work. Today, the work has been assessed at anywhere from $1 million to $1.5 million.
Earlier, I said that I was unable to forget about the December 22 storm, because it is my birthday. On that day, I got a call telling me that something very serious was happening. We could no longer see the wharf, just the lamp post.
In this case it is also important to recognize the work of the people at the Quebec Department of Transport. One man has worked there for 35 years. There is Highway 132 and a bridge. In 35 years of work, this man had never seen the tide that high. Furthermore, we sent photos to engineers at Fisheries and Oceans Canada and they all had the same reaction. They asked what was happening. The tide was at 4.4, which is extremely low. Normally, it is dangerous at 5.2 or 5.4. This is quite a unique situation.
Furthermore, a lot of tourists come to this regions. We have fought a number of battles, and I think it is unfortunate to see facilities... People from all over come to pay us a visit—from Europe, etc. When they see it, they ask us who it belongs to. The answer is always the same, the Government of Canada. It is a bit unfortunate to see this. It is right in a village. We are not alone. I am certain that this is happening in various regions across Canada.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Does anybody else want to comment about the A-base idea and whether it should be expanded?
4:15 p.m.
Member, Maritimes and Gulf, National Harbour Authority Advisory Committee
For clarification, when you say “expanded”, are you talking about small craft harbours taking on additional dollars for divesture?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
On the basis that these divested wharves are targeted for divestiture and they're sitting there in bad shape—and they're an eyesore, really—should we just be targeting that A-base funding to make sure that it's for the direct core fishing harbours and maybe something else, or whatever?
4:15 p.m.
Member, Maritimes and Gulf, National Harbour Authority Advisory Committee
With small craft harbours—and it might be a question for them as well—my argument to the committee would be, let's put the dollars in A-base funding. My understanding is that small craft harbours would have a plan on how to deal with divestiture region by region or where there's a large number of harbours that need to be divested. I'd put my trust in them that they would obviously have the priority to the core harbours, but at the same time, the reality is that those facilities are there, and with the dollars and enough time to plan, I think they have the ability to do both: to focus on the core harbours, but also to slowly deal with, over time, those other harbours that need to be divested.
I would trust their judgment. I know they have plans and priorities and try to deal with so many a year. I'd leave that to them to deal with. I think they're quite capable of handling it.
4:20 p.m.
Member, Quebec, National Harbour Authority Advisory Committee
I would like to give you some more information with regard to the divestiture program. Two or three years ago, it was $82 million. Today, I am certain that this figure is closer to $100 million. It is essential that the A-base funding for essential harbours not be touched.
According to the document that I submitted to you, 70% of the funding in Quebec goes to dredging, and approximately $1.1 or $1.2 million remains for some 100 fishing or pleasure boating harbours. It should be a completely separate budget. If funding is taken to repair essential harbours, those other harbours will suffer. There already is not enough money. Clearly, we need a completely separate budget. It should be a completely separate program for essential fishing harbours.
4:20 p.m.
Member, Maritimes and Gulf, National Harbour Authority Advisory Committee
The only caution I would throw out, though, to my fellow representative is that I wouldn't want to see small craft harbours' hands tied if there were a separate pot of money and they had no flexibility. Suppose there comes a time when there's a core harbour in the A-base funding, and we have to trust their judgment. If you identify a separate pot of money, will they have the ability to work with that and apply it to a core fishing harbour if priorities change? I'd be very cautious. I would throw that caution out on that.
4:20 p.m.
Member, Pacific, National Harbour Authority Advisory Committee
Yes, I think it's worth remembering that we have a fund right now for divestiture. I believe it was $45 million over five years. That's still available. And I echo the comments. A-base funding is critical. If our A-base funding is increased and there are problems, we can solve the problems. But it's very difficult if money is targeted for one specific problem at the expense of A-base funding.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Thank you very much, and welcome, ladies and gentlemen. You do a great job. I was here when this was established. I don't know that I was the biggest fan of harbour authorities at the time, but I think it turned out to be a pretty efficient way of handling things. I think the people who know best are the ones who walk on the wharves and know exactly what the problems are.
I want to also welcome the people behind you. I want to also make sure to say that you're representing a lot of great people right across the country who do an awful lot of work for nothing. We all know and appreciate that.
I have a lot of questions and a short time.
You mentioned that there are 237 harbour authorities in your area. You mentioned a figure--I don't know if you knew the figure--which was what you thought it would take to put the harbours back in reasonable shape. That figure is not available, is it?
I forget who it was who indicated, I think, that there was a $200,000 job that became a $1.5 million job, and that's what happens when the face of the wharf allows the water to go in behind, and the ice.... I'd just like you to explain what happens when the dollars are not spent. That $200,000 can become a one- or two-million dollar tab for the government. It is a disgrace for government to have dilapidated wharves around the country.
I'd just like you to comment on that first, Osborne, and anybody else who wishes to.
4:20 p.m.
Member, Maritimes and Gulf, National Harbour Authority Advisory Committee
Certainly. In relation to the numbers, I think we've heard in testimony in the past the number $500 million or something. The small craft harbours directorate would probably be best suited to providing the actual numbers in terms of dollars. What I mentioned earlier today was that just in projects we could potentially complete at harbours in the Maritimes and gulf region, the amount would be in the range of $600 million to $700 million for about 1,500 to 1,700 projects, if you wanted to do everything that needs to be done over the long term.
I don't think we'll ever have enough dollars to address it all. We're just fooling ourselves if we sit around here and think we will. We're trying to be as creative as we can be. That leads into the second point you're making, which is that wherever we can, we need to do preventive maintenance. There are several initiatives we're doing nationally with small craft harbours staff and regionally. We're coming up with harbour authority maintenance manuals and checklists for the volunteers, or paid staff, where we have them, so they can get out there to check our facilities to try to catch something.
It's no different from your house. If you have a minor leak and leave it alone, a little while later, if you don't deal with it, the whole wall is gone, and you're into major repairs. We've seen that over a number of years when we didn't have sufficient dollars in the A-base to deal with it. If we deal with something today, it might be a $40,000 repair. If you leave it alone, you could have ice damage and storm damage. It gets undermined, and the first thing you know, the whole wharf collapses.
