Evidence of meeting #118 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was authorities.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Spokesperson, Wedgeport Harbour Authority
If I may ask for clarity, Mr. Arnold, do you mean design of new projects, or what do you mean exactly?
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
I mean the repair of an existing project or a new portion, such as the breakwater that went in. I saw that it has blocked off access for anything bigger than a dinghy from a huge portion of the wharf.
Spokesperson, Wedgeport Harbour Authority
I appreciate your touring our area. It means a lot.
I believe the small craft harbours has in-house engineers and in some circumstances they may subcontract that work out, but especially with the in-house engineers they come up with a design concept in consultation with the harbour authorities, which I believe they're mandated to do. However, again, they're within budget constraints, so sometimes they tell the engineers not so much what's their perfect design, but what they can design with a certain amount of funds.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
The reason I ask is that one of the other harbours we toured during our Maritimes tour in June had designed pilings and walls that failed within, I believe, less than a year.
Ms. Shiels, are you able to indicate who might be responsible for the design of that infrastructure and who is responsible for it when it fails?
Lawyer, Clifford Shiels Legal
I would say that the design of the infrastructure would be with the department. They are often working closely with Public Works. These are federal properties. Minor repairs, which can range from small to large fixes but, generally, I would say less than $5,000 to $10,000, that's the range cost-wise that we're looking at for a lot of the minor repairs. Some of those would fall to the harbour authority, but the infrastructure is on the federal government side.
I do know they work with consulting engineers in Halifax. I can't comment in detail on the engineering front, but I do feel there's a liability on the part of the department for the condition of its infrastructure. I have heard frustration voiced by individual fishermen that sometimes the design of these structures does not address their needs and, in particular, some of them who have been working at individual harbours for decades feel that they have a better understanding of wave action, the movement of tides and wind, than some of the engineers who visit their harbours. They would like to have an opportunity to express those concerns prior to development of these major projects.
Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)
Thank you, Mr. Arnold.
Thank you to our three guests again, Ms. Shiels, Mr. Facey and Mr. LeBlanc.
That concludes our first hour of committee hearings.
November 6th, 2018 / 4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Pat Finnigan Liberal Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
Mr. Chair, if I may, I have a motion. Could I read it before we end this session?
Liberal
Pat Finnigan Liberal Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
Thank you.
The motion reads:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the impact of the rapid increase of the striped bass in the Miramichi River and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and how and when reference points are determined which may trigger interventions on this and other predators affecting other species and marine life; that this study be comprised of no less than three meetings; and that the committee report its findings with recommendations back to the House.
Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)
Is there any discussion?
There's no discussion. That's just a motion put forward.
Thank you, Mr. Finnigan.
Again, thank you to our witnesses.
We'll take a short recess now to change over from public to go in camera.
[Proceedings continue in camera]