Fisheries Committee on Nov. 6th, 2018

[Lucien LeBlanc]

Our harbour is much more condensed than Mr. Facey's cluster; it's in one area. We have a proposal submitted to Moncton. As I mentioned, we had submitted this proposal about 20 years ago; however, we had to resubmit lately.

Basically, around $6 million would fix our overcapacity issue. We have approximately $600,000, with current upgrades that we need to the facility we have today, to maintain the structure.

I should touch on the point that small craft harbours' budget isn't something we discuss with them routinely. We are fully aware that it's public knowledge and that if you're willing to dig far enough on the Internet you can find that thing, but basically the relationship we have with them is that we say, “Here's what we need”, and they tell us that someday, hopefully, they can get it done.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Okay. I'll come back to both of you on another question.

Ms. Shiels, you touched on derelict vessels. Can you elaborate a little on responsibilities and problems with harbours and jurisdiction and how the government could play a role in solving this problem?

[Sarah Shiels]

Derelict vessels are a common challenge at small craft harbours, related to some of the other issues that we've looked at today. As fishermen purchase larger vessels to pursue the fishery, some of the older, smaller vessels are left behind and might be sold for scrap and then abandoned at a harbour. It's a common problem.

The Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act provides enforcement powers to enable or facilitate the removal of these vessels. It's contemplated by the legislation. As I've already mentioned, the enforcement officers designated by DFO are not willing to exercise those powers, so the alternative approach is through the courts or through a number of fairly cumbersome statutory processes. It can be extremely costly and trying for harbour authorities to try to remove these vessels.

I am aware that there is new legislation pending to address derelict vessels. My overarching concern with that legislation, which I have looked at, is that it is permissive, as is the current legislation, the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act, and is dependent on the will of officials to act. There just are not the tools on the ground for harbour authorities to effectively deal with these issues.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Combined with that, there's a very limited amount of funds right across the country to deal with the problem.

I appreciate that.

In the few seconds I have left, I'll go back to Mr. Facey and Mr. LeBlanc to comment about revenue. Do you see the solution coming from increased fees from fishermen or from taxpayers? What's the funding solution here?

[Noel Facey]

I think the funding solution has to come first of all from the government, because it's a government property. In many cases, the fees for the fishermen have been increased. In the three harbours that I work with, we've already increased the fees and plan to do so again in April.

The kickback we're getting is that the fishermen are saying, “You want us to increase the fees, but I still have to sit outside the harbour for an hour, because of the capacity, before I can unload my catch.” That's the dilemma we're in.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. LeBlanc, do you have a quick comment?

[Lucien LeBlanc]

Yes, for sure.

We've been increasing our fees percentage-wise, basically in the same way the income has been increasing. As the income has been growing, we've been increasing our fees for the past 10 years here.

At the end of the day, as Mr. Facey mentioned, it is a public facility owned by the federal government. Our job as a harbour authority is to maintain its safety and regular use. Basically, it's their infrastructure, and I believe they should be funding these upgrades.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thanks for your testimony.

[The Chair]

Thank you, Mr. Donnelly.

Now we go back to the government side and Mr. Fraser, for seven minutes or less, please.

[Colin Fraser]

Thanks.

In all of your presentations you highlighted the important work that harbour authorities do, often not getting the recognition for it that they deserve.

I want to say thank you to both of you, Mr. Facey and Monsieur LeBlanc, for being on your harbour authorities and taking on that responsibility. I know how many hours go into the work that's done by these volunteer positions.

Mr. Facey, I know that recently the harbour authorities on Digby Neck—the three of them—have united into one harbour authority that you're involved with. What could be done better to support your harbour authority in doing the job you're tasked with doing?

[Noel Facey]

This is something I've been pushing for since I started four years ago.

One of the problems is that these harbour authorities are made up of volunteer fishermen.

To give you one example, the president of a harbour authority and his brother are on the same committee. His brother parks his truck on the wharf, which is illegal. Well, guess what? He's not going to go down and tell his brother that he has to move his truck or else he's going to have it towed or ticketed.

In many cases, I've found that these harbour authorities came together and thought it was a great deal and everything, but in many cases—and no disrespect to them, because they're hard workers—they don't have.... I think they did it because the government said, “This is a great deal for you”, but they didn't realize, really, what they were getting into. One thing I have said to the harbour authority within the last couple of weeks is, “Do you really understand when you sign that lease the amount of accountability and responsibility you're taking on as a volunteer?” The answer was no, they do not understand that.

There needs to be an intermediary between small craft harbours and the harbour authority. There needs to be somebody who can come into the harbour authority and say, “I just sat in on your board meeting, and this is wrong and that is wrong, and in order to make this a successful operation, these are the things you have to change.” That step is missing, between small craft harbours and the harbour authority.

[Colin Fraser]

Thanks for that.

Ms. Shiels, I know that harbour authorities are often dealing with complex issues relating to lease agreements that are continually having to be re-examined. What could the government be doing better to facilitate the lease agreement process, in your view?

[Sarah Shiels]

I think it's true that many harbour authorities, as Mr. Facey has mentioned, do not understand what they're signing. I don't know whether Mr. Facey could comment on the literacy level of fishermen who are looking at these agreements, but I think there are many terms in there that are not well understood.

I think that independent legal advice involved in the process of executing these agreements would be beneficial. Whether that's something the department could help fund, I don't know, but I think it would help the process overall.

There could be more flexibility in the way the document is framed. The lease agreement itself follows a national template. I have a copy here. It applies in similar respects to all harbour authorities in Canada. It's a “one size fits all” sort of agreement, and it is asking a lot of harbour authorities.

[Colin Fraser]

Would you be able to send a copy of that to the clerk so that we have it?

[Sarah Shiels]

Yes.

I will mention that I have seen quite a few of these. This is for a harbour authority I do not currently work with—it's available online—but it's a sample that I think is representative of others that are in use.

[Colin Fraser]

That's fair enough. Thank you, Ms. Shiels.

Mr. LeBlanc, let me go back to you.

You touched on the fact that there are two ports in Wedgeport. I know them well: Wedge Point, which we were talking about earlier, but also the tuna wharf, which is basically an iconic port in southwestern Nova Scotia because of its connection to the tuna fishing history. There is currently a tuna fishing tournament that attracts many visitors to southwestern Nova Scotia every summer.

I want to ask you the status of any plans for divestiture of that wharf. What is the current status? Is there anything the government could be doing, from your point of view, to make that facility better capable of handling the work that it provides to the community?

[Lucien LeBlanc]

That's a great question. It's a question that is tough to answer.

To understand the issue, you have to rewind just a bit. Basically, the harbour authority some time ago was given an ultimatum. The Wedge Point wharf had more commercial value because it's a deeper harbour. They were given an ultimatum saying to pick one or the other.

I think the tuna wharf was used as a scapegoat to fund the Wedge Point side of things; it was, though, an easy way for small craft harbours, again because of budget constraints, to basically forget about it. As far as plans for the future are concerned, it's in a divestiture process with small craft harbours. I believe they have to go through certain ranks and legalities. I believe they start with the provincial government, then municipal government, then aboriginal groups, and then they may give it to the community.

That is the best-case scenario, given the horrible circumstances that happened there. The community, though, has a huge interest in seeing the tuna wharf maintained in the future. As you mentioned, the tournament that happens there yearly is one of a kind. It's a tournament unique to Canada and it commemorates that area and that wharf itself as being the tuna fishing capital of the world. The community really wants to see it stay alive.

With the current state of things, and if nothing changes at small craft harbours and they don't decide to fund it—which they're not doing, given that they have many more issues to deal with—I believe a community group will have to be erected, and they will have to find funds elsewhere.

[Colin Fraser]

That's helpful.

Thank you all very much.

[The Chair]

Thank you, Mr. Fraser.

Now we go back to the Conservative side, to Mr. Doherty for the remaining time, please.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I'm going to split my time with Mr. Arnold. I just have a really quick comment.

Mr. Facey, you brought up something very important that we see in aviation as well: the legal responsibilities that a board of directors individually face, and what they're getting themselves into when they sign on to be a board. That was a great comment.

I want to offer one more time, to Mr. Facey and Mr. LeBlanc, I wasn't asking about the revenue of the harvest from each harbour, but about the harbour authority's annual revenue for 2017. I believe you gave me the value of the harvest instead of what the harbour authority brought in.

[Noel Facey]

Among the three harbours, the new amalgamated harbour authority—which will start in April, because we're still trying to bring it all together—it is probably going to be somewhere around $50,000 to $60,000.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. LeBlanc.

[Lucien LeBlanc]

We're looking at around $80,000. Your typical lobster vessel is putting in about $1,200.

The $80,000 goes to funding our manager, our power bill, security, general day-to-day things.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

That's what I was looking for.

Thank you.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I had the opportunity to tour southwestern Nova Scotia over the summer. I had the chance to get out to Wedgeport. I saw both the tuna harbour and the Wedgeport harbour, and that was why I suggested you be a witness, Mr. LeBlanc.

Seeing what had taken place there raised a question for me. Who is responsible for the infrastructure and design, and who guarantees it once it's put in place?

I'll go first to you, Mr. LeBlanc, and then possibly to Ms. Shiels.