Fisheries Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2018

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Are they not factored in as well?

[Sylvie Lapointe]

They're not part of our mandate. As I mentioned, in 1995, the decision was made that the mandate of the program would really focus on supporting commercial fishing operations.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I imagine dredging is an issue in many places across Canada, but particularly on the east coast, with the increasing severity of the storms and the need, it appears, to dredge.

If you had the funding to do all the dredging that was necessary to keep things at least in a state of good repair, or even to make improvements to capacity, would the existing service provider be able to keep up or, had you the funding and the plan, would that in fact open the door for a second service provider to come in and basically expand the amount of that activity going on?

You haven't gone there yet, have you?

[Denise Frenette]

To be honest, I'm not quite sure I understand the question.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

If you look at all of the dredging that could be done, both for a state of good repair and to make improvements, would there be more work available than the one service provider on the east coast is able to provide?

[Denise Frenette]

It depends on the capacity of the service providers we have currently. Certainly if we had more money, we would probably increase the dredging. Right now we are limited to just the pure safety and priority and—

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Do you think they could keep up, or would it expand their business or create an opportunity for another business?

[Denise Frenette]

It would either expand their business or create an opportunity for another business.

The reason I'm hesitant is I don't necessarily have information on their current maximum capacity.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Okay, thank you.

That's good.

[The Chair]

Now to the Conservative side, we have Mr. Calkins, for four minutes or less.

[Blaine Calkins, Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Given that this is my third or fourth time going through a small craft harbours report in this committee, I wasn't going to offer too much more insofar as what I know or don't know—or think I know or don't know—but I just had to pipe in today, and I want to thank the officials for being here.

I've often sat around this committee table and it wasn't necessarily made known to the public that we could probably just dust off the previous three versions of the small craft harbours report, change the date and the names of the people who did it, and we would basically be in the same place.

That's not a reflection of anything other than just the situation we're in. We are continually trying to address the problem with the same kind of thinking that we've been trying to address the problem with for years and years now. That's not the fault of anybody at this table.

I want to talk a bit about fleet, and the fleet changing. What information do we have insofar as the changing of the fleet is concerned? We've had authorities and people from fishing organizations coming here saying that there are craft that are basically taking up three times the footprint of existing craft right now.

Can you give the committee some insight into the consolidation of the fleet? Are we getting fewer but bigger boats? Are we getting more boats that are bigger boats? Do we have any information on that fleet consolidation, and how rapidly the fleet is actually changing?

[Sylvie Lapointe]

The fleet changes would depend on which fishery you were talking about. If we were to take an example in the area of southwest Nova Scotia and the lobster fishery, we're not getting more boats, but we are getting larger boats, for sure.

[Blaine Calkins]

Do those larger boats have a different capacity for fishing? They would probably have longer ranges and the ability to stay out longer at sea. Would that be correct?

[Sylvie Lapointe]

They would have more efficient fishing capacity.

[Blaine Calkins]

I live in Alberta—don't hold that against me—but I'm very interested in fisheries. My background is fisheries and aquatic sciences. This is the stuff I love to talk about.

I grew up on a farm, and the Government of Canada doesn't own a single piece of infrastructure between the farm gates on my farmer's land and the port of Vancouver. I also represent people who are in the forestry industry, and the Government of Canada doesn't own a single piece of infrastructure between where that tree is taken down and the port in Vancouver, if that piece of lumber or any of the product is actually being shipped to an export market or even used in a domestic marketplace.

I can go through just about every other natural resource sector we have in Canada, and I can say.... I'm not going to say the Government of Canada doesn't from time to time help those sectors, but it does not actually own any infrastructure. It doesn't own the grain-buying terminals. It doesn't own the railway companies. It doesn't own any of those things.

This seems to be the only industry that I'm aware of in Canada where the Government of Canada actively owns and manages infrastructure. I'm wondering if, from a paradigm perspective, there is an opportunity for the industry to take a more active role in ownership of the industry assets that it needs.

When I see fishermen come to the table and say they are getting rid of their smaller boats and building these large multi-million dollar boats, and when I see Clearwater and other processing companies expanding their operations, I'm wondering why the Government of Canada is doing this. Is there not some other perspective that we can look at this problem from by getting the Government of Canada out of the business of actually owning the infrastructure and simply providing support where necessary from time to time?

Has that ever been discussed or looked at inside the department?

[Sylvie Lapointe]

Yes, it has, several times. I think as Denise mentioned, we've looked at alternatives to deliver the program. The challenge is that there are very few parties interested in taking on this kind of responsibility for a structure that's—

[Blaine Calkins]

I don't know anybody who comes to the Government of Canada and says they will gladly pay for what it is currently paying for if it will just give them the chance. They do so because they would have to out of necessity of building the industry and building the capacity.

The Government of Canada started this a long time ago, but now maybe it's time to think about this differently. I'm not suggesting that the Government of Canada can't help in that transition, but I think there's an opportunity to do things smarter and I'm just hoping the report will go down that road. I understand it's a very difficult question, but I'm wondering if it's possible.

[Sylvie Lapointe]

You raise a valid point. As I say, we have looked at it before, and that's something we continue to look at. In terms of the industry contributing more to the costs of the operations of the harbour, they do pay fees to the harbour authorities and there are certainly opportunities there for those fees to be increased, which would help in the day-to-day maintenance of the harbour.

[The Chair]

Mr. Donnelly, you have four minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to continue on the same conversation that my colleague brought up. He talked about a potential corporate model. Has the department thought about a co-op model as well, working with independent fish harvesters, for instance, to find out if divesting these assets to some kind of a co-op model or a community-based model might work?

[Sylvie Lapointe]

We've looked at a public-private partnership. I'm not sure if that was an actual co-op model. We looked at, as well, a special operating agency. As I say, we do continue to look at those alternatives, and we'd certainly be interested in any suggestions or ideas that the committee has.

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

We did talk to a number of municipalities, but I think they're more interested in recreational use than fishing. We did talk to—at least on the west coast, I remember—some first nations that were interested in fishing. Perhaps that model could be looked at.

Could I back up a step and ask why somebody would want to accept these assets? I would assume there is already infrastructure that they could take advantage of. It's there. The question is whether the income or revenue is available to upgrade or maintain these assets.

[Sylvie Lapointe]

As you've noted, there is definitely more of an interest in taking on some of the recreational harbours and making them more of a marine infrastructure, where the municipality that takes it on board can actually generate some significant revenue. The first nations piece is something we are actively looking at, but again, I think our initial sense is that if first nations were to take this on board, their expectation would be that there would be some ongoing continued financial support from the government. That is an area we're exploring.

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

Ms. Frenette, did you want to comment?

[Denise Frenette]

Yes.

I would mention that we don't invest in upgrades for harbours that we consider non-core harbours. We try to make sure they continue to be safe, and sometimes it may mean that we have to block off access if we can't do the repairs. Sometimes there is an interest from the community to get those properties, because when we divest we put them back into a state of good repair, and then they have a better asset for their community. They can continue on, as Denise said, to do activities that may yield more economic benefit for their community.