[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, June 11, 1996
.1539 
[English]
The Chairman: We'll call the meeting to order. I'd like to welcome Mike Godin, the director general of the small craft harbours directorate.
I guess you're going to be by yourself today, Mike.
Mr. Michael A. Godin (Director General, Small Craft Harbours Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Apparently so, yes.
The Chairman: Apparently so. Normally we start off with a presentation from you, ask questions, and take it from there.
Mr. Godin: Mr. Chairman, I don't have a presentation as such, but I think most of the members are aware of the small craft harbours program. I know the minister, Mr. Mifflin, is prepared to brief the caucus and the MPs on the program very soon. I don't want to get too far in front of the parade. I'll wait for the minister to make his statements and do his briefings, but I'm prepared to entertain any questions and answer any questions I can.
.1540
The Chairman: Are you prepared? We could go this way.
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel (Matapédia - Matane): In Gaspé, there are a lot of harbours where small craft dock. Having talked with many municipalities, I know that some of them are seriously considering whether they are prepared to take over these harbours because most are extensively damaged. Before rehabilitating them, if this is what we are talking about today, we should know whether we can count on compensation or assistance in order to make the necessary repairs because, as you know, the municipalities are increasingly indebted. There are enormous demands on them for roads, for example, and other matters. And when there are additional expenses and they want to increase taxes, it's virtually impossible. I would like you to tell us what your policy is on this subject. Is this what you wanted the Minister to tell us?
[English]
Mr. Godin: Mr. Chairman, the small craft harbours program, as you well know, is a program that is in support of the commercial fishery. We've more or less put aside the support for the recreational boating area, the harbours area, in any event.
Where we have harbours, such as in the Gaspé area, we have been putting in place a system of local harbour management called ``harbour authorities''. We do give these harbour authorities priority consideration in obtaining funding support for repairs. If the fishing community - and when I say ``fishing community'', it does not exclude the municipality, but it's primarily the fishermen themselves whom we want our support to go to - takes on the management of the harbour authority and helps us out with the repairs by contributing attention and some labour, we will provide funding assistance to do the necessary repairs at the harbours.
We are limited. Just as municipalities find it hard to get money, the small craft harbours directorate also has a very difficult time getting money. So we try to do the most important work first for the largest number of fishermen, because it is an industry support program.
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel: If I understand correctly, these harbours are being handed over to people with much less money than the federal government. They are almost being given a hot potato - it's not even a gift - since even the fishermen's association tells me that it couldn't afford to do so. The fishermen are turning to the municipalities, which are telling them that the problem is the federal government's responsibility and that they are surprised that the federal government is not acting as it used to. We are talking about harbours at the moment, but you know perfectly well that the problem is identical for regional and local airports.
But I'm going to stick to harbours. I know that, in my riding in Gaspé, some fishermen say they will no longer be able to dock in the same place.
.1545
I thought there could be an agreement with the municipalities, but they telling me the same thing, that this isn't possible. Now you're telling me that there will have to be an agreement between the municipalities and the fishermen to whom the harbour is handed over. It seems to me it would be better to tell them outright that, if they can't afford it, we can't either. So the situation is becoming tragic.
As I have fishermen in my riding, I am very pleased to be here today to put these questions to you and to my colleagues. I don't know whether they have the same problems, but I think the situation often becomes dramatic in certain small municipalities where people no longer know who to turn to, whereas we are almost hitting them over the head, telling them to get organized.
You know as well as I do that some harbours need fairly extensive repairs. Enormous sums are not necessarily involved, but these repairs are essential. Furthermore, some fishermen's associations have told me that they might be able to take them over once they were repaired, but they could not pay for those repairs.
It seems to me I heard you say you were also undergoing cuts. Of course you are, but it seems to me we have to be logical and hand something over to these people in good condition.
[English]
Mr. Godin: Mr. Chairman, I think I'm very sympathetic to the member's cause. I believe our going in will help solve some of those problems.
To explain just one facet of the harbour authority concept, rather than using public works engineers and outside contractors to do a lot of the repair work at harbours, we are proposing to provide to the harbour authority contribution money so that they can do their own labour. They can do their own contracting. It has been our experience that in most of the small work done around harbours, with contracts in the order of $25,000, what costs the government $25,000 the fishermen can get done for about $10,000 or even $5,000. They are much better at getting good work done for very little money. This is going to multiply the effect of the little money that I have.
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel: Do you mean that, if fishermen or people from the village were able to make the repairs, you would provide the necessary money for those repairs? Did I understand you correctly?
Mr. Godin: Yes, of course.
Mr. Canuel: Yes?
Mr. Godin: Yes.
Mr. Canuel: Very good.
[English]
The Chairman: Maybe, Mike, you could explain a little more about harbour authorities. My understanding is that it's the small jobs the fishermen can get their own contractors to do or can do themselves.
Mr. Godin: That's right.
The Chairman: The large projects - are they $20,000? - are funded by you.
Mr. Godin: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. We want to have that contribution authority lifted so that we can go up to about $100,000. The only limit would be the capability of the communities and the fishermen to get the work done. We would provide a small amount of engineering if it's required. We will eliminate the large block of government overhead.
A lot of municipalities have small works departments. The harbour authority can contract with them to do the work. It keeps all the money in the community, and we get much better value for the dollar.
The Chairman: The small contributions, I understand, are for only three years; it's to get them off the ground and under the -
Mr. Godin: Mr. Chairman, that was to set up office. We are now moving towards contribution money. Rather than Public Works coming in and changing a ladder on the wharf, the harbour authority will be given the money to get the ladder job done any way it can. We're finding that the savings to the program could amount to $10 million a year once we get all the harbour authorities in place and get them doing the work.
This $10 million will be put back into the repairs. It won't be turned over to Treasury Board.
The Chairman: Is this any harbour that has an authority?
Mr. Godin: That's right.
The Chairman: Whether it's A, B, or C harbour?
Mr. Godin: That's correct, Mr. Chairman.
.1550
Mr. Culbert (Carleton - Charlotte): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to continue, Mr. Chairman, with the harbour authority concept. I agree that the concept is good. It's something I've certainly encouraged in my region, and a number of them have been established and are working well for the very reason, those small repairs, you gave a few moments ago.
Where I have some problems, quite frankly, is in those capital repairs. Probably most areas would be similar to mine, and the wharfs probably were built 40 to 50 years ago for the most part. They of course get somewhat dilapidated. You come along and perhaps assist through the harbour authority with the minor repairs. I think that is working reasonably well. You're absolutely right.
I think it's being done much more efficiently. It's certainly being done much more economically. So from that point of view, they're working.
I have a real problem with respect to major repairs or damage. My understanding is that it has been explained to the harbour authority that the small craft harbours directorate will still come along and be responsible for funding for any major repairs, storm damage, and that type of thing.
That's my problem. How do we get into streamlining it so that funding can be set aside for those types of things? It isn't a case of doing it this year or holding off and possibly doing it next year when funding is available. As you know, things have happened because of storm damage.
If you don't do it this year, you won't have a wharf next year; or instead of it costing $100,000, it will be $400,000 or $500,000, because it opens it up to the seas and to the waves. An area such as the Bay of Fundy has high and powerful waves. It is not like most areas.
That's the specific area I'm concerned with. But I want to tell you I agree with the concept of harbour authorities. They will work, they are working, but you have to do something about that specific area.
Mr. Godin: In response to your comment, we believe the harbour authority is the way to multiply the effect of the money. Getting better performance out of the limited amount of money we put into minor maintenance will release funds for the major works. It's kind of a pulling up by the bootstraps approach, because we've pretty well exhausted our supply of new money. We're looking at every way possible to magnify the benefits from the limited dollars we have.
It's been frustrating that in many cases we haven't been able to prevent small repair jobs from becoming big repair jobs. That's a false economy, and we're doing our best to tackle those jobs before they get big. Unfortunately, there are cases that get away from us.
Mr. Culbert: How do we get that message through to the people in the regions who are working with the small craft harbours directorate? Then of course it's still your policy for any major work to have Public Works and Government Services engineers look at it and give you estimates on the amount of damage and what it would take to complete those repairs.
How do we get the message through that it's more efficient and more economical to support the harbour authority, for example, when there's damage, in doing it this year instead of saying we don't have funding to do it this year? We have to find the funding to do it this year. Quite honestly, the expertise is in the harbour authority, because generally speaking it's made up of fisherman and fishing communities. They tell me that if we don't fix the small problem this year for, say, $100,000, next year we're probably looking at $300,000 to $400,000. To me that is a very false economy, and I'm wondering how we get around it.
Mr. Godin: I certainly wouldn't fault the regions. Our regional staff are more than aware of this and spend a lot of hours on the phone trying to convince me that they should get money. I spend many hours on the phone telling them I don't have any more money and I can't get any more.
.1555
We're just having to become much smarter and make better use of the wisdom of the fishermen and their skills. We have to stretch our dollar as far as we can.
Again, it is always a matter of identifying the worst case so we don't have a disaster staring us in the face. We don't always do a very good job of it, but we do the best we can. There is certainly no lack of intelligence out there, and there is certainly no lack of effort and desire to get the best value for the dollar.
Mr. Culbert: I just want to finally touch on one thing. I want to leave you the message that I think the people who are in the harbour authorities are doing a fantastic job, because they've been very ingenious in how they find funding and in how they raise funding in order to do their jobs. They're taking care of the small $25,000, $30,000 and $40,000 jobs quite sufficiently, with perhaps some help from your department.
But again, it is those major damages we need to look at. We need to earmark some funding for those. No one knows when they're going to happen, but when they do happen they need to be repaired forthwith before the next season, so to speak.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Verran.
Mr. Verran (South West Nova): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for going to the other member first, because he has asked some of the questions I had on my mind to ask.
The first member's questions mentioned that most communities have a public works department that could probably offset or help and assist. The large coastal area I represent - I'm sure you're familiar with it - is in southwest Nova Scotia. There is not that kind of public works facility close at hand. In most cases there is absolutely none because those coastal communities do not have such an animal in their communities. Believing this assistance is available might be part of DFO's or small craft harbours' platform. In actual fact, it isn't.
I would think it is in a very small minority of situations, certainly in the long stretch of coast from the bay shore all the way around to the Pubnicoes, that you would find this assistance, except probably in the Yarmouth area itself.
So this is one thing. The other thing is you mentioned, sir, about a response to getting these small jobs done. Well, it has been my experience over a very short period of time that, yes, small jobs can be done, but we still bring in public works engineers. This is where the problem starts.
The local fishermen at the local wharf know the area well. Some of them have fished there for many, many years. They have very good minds and good reasoning as to what would facilitate their facility, what would make it stronger, make it better and make it useable for the next 20 years.
As soon as you bring in public works engineers, they don't want something that is going to last for 20 years. For most fishermen, 20 years is a lifetime. You're dealing with people who are 35 or 40 years of age, and after 20 years they're finished. So they'll say after 20 years surely the whole structure may be changed. The wharves may be gone, or there may be a new super-wharf built three miles down the coastline.
So all of a sudden there is a change from something that will do reasonably and will fit the fishermen for this time, for this century, for the next 20 years. Public works wants to do something that is going to last for 50 years. Yes, I have seen in one case where a project that would have cost somewhere around $60,000 or $70,000 was blown up to over $200,000 just because of this.
.1600
I guess what I'm saying, sir, is it is easy to look and say you have those structures in place and public works departments will come and they will help because now it is a user-friendly situation where everyone helps each other. That's an easy statement to make and an easy thing to believe. But in reality, unless you're on the spot and you know the areas intensely, that's not the fact. It's something that can be brushed over and we're just making believe we're saving money and have this other means of support when in actual fact it's not there. So what's happening is that our waters are getting worse and worse.
I live in the Bay of Fundy area. As we've said, a small wash-out this February from a large gale that could be fixed for $35,000 this spring can very well mean by next year that the water, with the waves and the sea and the force of it, is washing through the underpinnings - the pinnings and the pilings - and going right through and washing the rocks as it goes. So it's more or less weakening the whole structure rather than just a small segment.
My direct question to you, sir, is I'm interested in knowing how many people are working in the Halifax office from the small craft harbours directorate. How big a space do they have, and how many support people do they have working there in Halifax to cover Nova Scotia?
Mr. Godin: Mr. Chairman, we don't cover Nova Scotia specifically from Halifax. We have a small staff - a smaller staff than we once had - which I believe is about four individuals. We are moving our people out to offices in the field, to places like Yarmouth and all around the coastlines. We're having fewer and fewer people in regional offices.
My personal belief is we should have better coverage. We should have our staff out on the coastline where the harbours are and not in the cities like Halifax - or Moncton, for that matter. The bulk of our people are out in the field.
Mr. Verran: Thank you. But can you be more specific and tell me the number of staff the Halifax office has?
Mr. Godin: I can't give you the exact number, but I can get back to the chairman with the number - and the names of the individuals, as a matter of fact.
Mr. Verran: You mentioned putting people out in the field and out where the action is, so to speak, where the fishing takes place. For a whole number of years - and this is nothing new, it's not since this present government came to power, but previous to this government - there was a small craft harbours contingent in Yarmouth. Do you know - you probably don't know offhand unless you have some figures - how many people are there? Or do you know if in the future that office in Yarmouth will grow, or will it be decentralized?
Mr. Godin: Mr. Chairman, in regard to the office in Yarmouth, we just sent a fellow down there to reopen it, so it definitely has a future. It has three individuals in it now, and it never had more than two in the past. Years ago we had one there. It was shut down and we opened it up again.
Mr. Verran: So there are two people there now -
Mr. Godin: No, three.
Mr. Verran: - and there's a new person sent in.
Mr. Godin: That's right. We sent a person down on secondment from the Moncton office until we staff it with a chief position. We sent the engineer five down from Moncton to operate it in the meantime.
Mr. Verran: It's my understanding that there was a person taken out of that office and relocated to Ottawa, who was doing work from Ottawa and flying back and forth, at times, to look after certain projects. That doesn't seem a very efficient or cost-efficient way to the people in the Yarmouth area - this is not just my own view. I'm only bringing this up because it's a concern to the fishermen and to the area, especially from Meteghan around to Pubnico.
Mr. Godin: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that individual is back in the Yarmouth office now. She came to Ottawa to help us out during a maternity-leave situation for a number of months. She went back prior to the time she should have been back, but we sent her back down to get ready for the fishing season.
Mr. Verran: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two more short questions, please.
Can you tell me, sir, what the budget for Nova Scotia is, and can you break it down into the South Shore and to South West Nova? I don't mean to pick out South Shore in particular. It's just that it's a neighbouring and very large fishing constituency. That's the only reason I bring that up.
.1605
Mr. Godin: Mr. Chairman, I can give the budgets for the different regions of the country. Unfortunately, I don't break them down by constituency, but they're certainly not that difficult to add up.
The Chairman: Do you have those for all the provinces?
Mr. Godin: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Could we have a copy for curiosity sake?
Mr. Godin: Yes, certainly.
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel: I would like to have them for all the regions, if possible, not just for Prince Edward Island. I would also like to know how many employees there are in Quebec and the amounts involved.
[English]
Mr. Godin: Very good, Mr. Chairman. I can send that in.
The Chairman: One more, Harry, and then we'll go to René.
Mr. Verran: What was your question? Maybe you could clarify your question. You asked about budget. Did you mean budget for all of Nova Scotia? I was zeroing in on the budget for South West Nova.
The Chairman: I just piggybacked on yours. You were getting yours; I'd like to have the rest of Atlantic Canada.
Mr. Verran: Okay, but can you break it down into South Shore, South West Nova, Halifax, Dartmouth, or whatever?
Mr. Godin: Mr. Chairman, the budget we put up is, generally speaking, broken down only for projects over $50,000 in individual constituencies. We don't normally try at the beginning of the year to break down how much money is going to be spent on minor maintenance, which is under $50,000. We track at the end of the year where it went to, but I believe I can come up with an approximation of how much is going into the different areas of Nova Scotia.
Mr. Verran: Thank you.
Would you be kind enough to get me - if you could send it to my office, or to the chairman and I could get it through him - a breakdown of what the budget, for instance, for South Shore and for South West Nova has been over the last four years, what moneys have been spent?
I feel that in the area of South West Nova, where we did not have the luxury of having a Minister of Fisheries as a member for South West Nova during the latter part of the last government, we have a lot of catching up to do. We've been short-changed for a long time, and I would like to know what those figures are, because I would like to know where to start with the minister, and yourself, and anyone else I have to, to try to find some means of starting to catch up, never mind being the leaders but just catching up. We have been hard hit. I believe we're now in bad or worse condition compared to some in other areas.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you. René, and then Gerry.
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel: I quite agree with my colleague from the Atlantic region in saying that there was some work to be done in our region and engineers came. I believe the invoices were inflated at one point. I don't think it was fraudulent. They just wanted to build an exemplary structure and we listened to the learned young engineers, who said that we needed this, that and the other thing. The fishermen thought the engineers were crazy, but, as engineers are generally brilliant, we gave in to what they said. But, a few years later, we realized that the engineers had not necessarily been right.
Personally, I admit there are capable people in every region who aren't asking an arm and a leg. They know that everybody has to save money. They are the first to know it. When they want to take their boats out, they are prepared to sacrifice a little bit on materials. A moment ago, my colleague mentioned a time period of 20 to 25 years, in general, for these harbours. I don't think we should consider they can last more than 25 years because we know that, at one point, it all falls apart like everything else.
Could we have a breakdown by region? That seems complicated, but I would like us to have a breakdown in each of our regions or constituencies in Quebec, for Gaspé, Matapédia, Matane, and so on, wherever there are a lot of small fishing harbours. Is this policy that you mentioned a moment ago, which is somewhat consistent with what I've been saying, written down? Can we obtain it and can I distribute it throughout my constituency? I get an enormous number of telephone calls and this will enable us to provide some information. People sometimes call your department and that's more complicated than going through the MP's office because we are closer to them.
.1610
Furthermore, I would like to inform my constituents properly and accurately.
[English]
Mr. Godin: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mifflin has recently instructed us to prepare such a package for distribution to MPs. It is -
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel: But when will that be?
[English]
Mr. Godin: I would say it will be out within two weeks. I'm in Quebec City for the rest of this week and next week I'm touring harbours in Nova Scotia. As soon as I get back I'll send it out.
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel: As you know, the session is coming to an end. If we don't have it before the end of the session, I'm afraid it will be forgotten.
[English]
Mr. Godin: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a commitment to get it out before the end of the session.
The Chairman: We won't forget. It's not a question for the Order Paper. We can get the -
Mr. Godin: Yes, we have it. It has been prepared on instruction from the minister. There was a couple of word changes in it after we had it at a meeting with the deputy. Unfortunately, as I say, I'll be out of town, but I can work on it Friday when I get back to town for the one day and we'll get it out.
The breakdown by regions will be made available as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel: If the committee receives your document and we subsequently want to introduce certain amendments or proposals, will it be too late?
[English]
Mr. Godin: I wouldn't say it would be too late. I'm sure Mr. Mifflin would entertain recommendations for change, but I wouldn't want to judge whether he would accept them or not. I believe the proposal is.... It is not that complete in some areas. There is a commitment to do certain studies and so forth in the future. The bulk of what I have said today is in this document and there is an information package. There are pieces of paper prepared that you can give to your constituents to explain what is happening. This is an approach that Mr. Mifflin has adopted.
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel: I understand that we are going to receive the document within two weeks. The committee could therefore review the document and make a few proposals or amendments. The document would then be sent back to the Minister, who would obviously make a decision. Is that correct? We have to understand each other because a committee very often receives very important people or deputy ministers who manage to make us believe a great many things, but it often takes a great deal of time to obtain the corresponding documents, if we manage to do so at all. Sometimes we almost have to take a train to go get them.
[English]
Mr. Godin: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe there will be any trouble, because this initiative of providing MPs with information came from the minister. I'm sure he'll welcome any recommendations from the committee as well.
The Chairman: If you don't come through for the minister, then you're in trouble.
Okay, Gerry.
Mr. Byrne (Humber - St. Barbe - Baie Verte): I would say welcome to an old colleague of mine, Mike Godin. It's nice to have you here to respond to questions. Mike and I worked well with each other in the minister's office, I think you will agree.
One of the things that I think I can appreciate, Mike, is that there is a lot of concern around this table and around the members' offices generally speaking from Atlantic Canada, Quebec, the Great Lakes and the Pacific that there is not enough work being done on the small craft harbours side. The small craft harbours represent for us and for our constituencies the highways of our oceans. They're the access way and critically important to the future viability of our coastal communities. I guess it's understandable that there would be that much concern expressed by members, because it does go to the heart, to the core of our concerns and our own aspirations for our communities.
.1615
But it has been noted that there's a feeling that there's not enough activity being taken on. The budget is not large enough on the small craft harbours side to be able to accommodate the requirements that are out there. You mentioned that the move to harbour authorities...I guess having local management involved is a cost-saving measure. You also mentioned that the potential savings is a factor of 2.5 potentially, in some cases.
If the small craft harbours program were to provide a level of service to its clients, to the fishermen, to the fishing vessel operators, what would the size of the actual budget have to be in 1996 dollar terms in order to actually provide services comparable to 1980 levels?
Mr. Godin: Mr. Chairman, that's kind of a nasty question. If we were using the old way of doing things, where we managed harbours and fixed them up using public works, probably a budget in the order of $150 million a year. The current budget level is $56 million. Now, using harbour authorities, we probably could trim that number down to something in the range of $100 million to $110 million. But we're still $50 million or $60 million short, so we have a long way to go to find new and better ways of getting our maintenance done.
One of the ways is to focus our efforts on the bigger and better harbour authorities, to not have so many harbours over the country to maintain. We've adopted the approach that we want the fishermen to make those decisions. We don't want to tell anybody that we're going to shut their harbour down. We will spend the money we have as fairly as we can, but we need a lot of help and we need a lot of help from the fishermen.
Mr. Byrne: That information is extremely helpful to us, because one of the foremost.... I know this from my own past experience, your first concerns are not with the politicians, they're with the fishermen. It is service to the fishermen within the small craft harbours program that is most important. And what you're suggesting to me is that there's a mechanism that can be put in place, and in many instances is put in place already, to save taxpayers approximately $100 million a year to provide the same levels of service to fishermen and yet actually not have a greater draw on the federal purse.
It seems to me that as parliamentarians we have to support this, not only support but actively promote it, because it is a mechanism whereby fishermen will actually receive greater value, greater benefit for their dollars, in terms of the actual facilities in their communities.
You mention that there are activities that are ongoing right now. The small craft harbours program still has a fairly sizeable budget in terms of the overall operations of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Is most of the work being conducted on harbours that are ten years old, in terms of the repair jobs? I ask this because there was some question as to whether or not it's appropriate or sensible to be spending money on rebuilding harbours that are 50 years old versus harbours that are 20 years old. From your experience, where are you spending most of your money?
Mr. Godin: Most of the money today is being spent at harbour authorities. We're spending probably 80% of our construction money at harbour authorities, and there isn't enough, unfortunately, because we're into a catch-up game. You're juggling so many balls in the air that you lose track of one every now and then, and we're looking for help in that juggling game.
.1620
As far as spending money, we renew harbours a piece at a time. A structure may have been there for 50 years, while right next door to it may be a piece that's 20 years old. In some other places there might be something that's been there for 75 years. We don't go in and completely rebuild harbours any more. That's a luxury we can't afford. We take a band-aid approach.
We don't know if this is going to be successful. We didn't decide to this because we thought it was a great idea - it's a survival mode. We're trying to stretch the budget as much as we can and we're looking for help in every place we can get it.
We're not the only ones putting money into the harbours. Recently, a harbour authority in New Brunswick came to us with a proposal. They had received money from the province. They said why don't you kick in a little bit of money and the feds can kick in some money and they did this little project.
Another harbour got money from us, from a municipality and from ACOA, so they're taking that kind of approach. Mind you, ACOA is still federal money, but the harbour authorities are looking for other places to get money. They're operating like little businesses, and little businesses are powerful and really good at getting money, getting help and getting things done. I believe they certainly do a better job than we do.
Mr. Byrne: This must tax the resources within your own branch a fair bit. When you were dealing just with Public Works and Government Services, you had one supplier of contracting services. Dealing with all the harbour authorities and all their individual requirements must put a significantly larger burden on your field staff and on your national headquarters staff as well, I would imagine. Is that a fair comment to make? I guess there are two sides to the question. The implementation of harbour authorities puts much of the responsibility into the hands of local fishermen, local fishermen's committees and local harbour authorities. It must be a big job to try to keep track of who's doing what.
Mr. Godin: Most definitely, Mr. Chairman. Setting up a harbour authority, setting up small businesses, teaching them about business law, taxes, insurance and so forth is almost a whole new game for us as well as the fishermen. It has put a great strain on the field staff especially, because if you want to find the experts in how a harbour should be run and how a business at a harbour should be run, the field staff members are the experts.
We deal with the policy issues and the budget issues here. When trying to set up a small business, you deal with things like municipal taxes, third-party liability insurance, board of directors insurance, and all those things you never had to bother with before. You suddenly find yourself in a whole new era. But it's exciting and everybody's very keen about it. We've seen some remarkable successes with these harbour authorities.
Mr. Byrne: I would commend the small craft harbours program for showing some innovation in terms of government re-engineering and restructuring, and actually devolving some of the responsibilities and some of the decision-making process to local committees. It has presented a huge strain, internally, but it has been a very valuable exercise. Despite the pain, the gain has been tremendous. You have my full support in continuing with that process.
We have to find better value for our taxpaying dollars that are put into our communities, and I think this is a textbook example of how it can be done. Congratulations.
Mr. Godin: Thank you.
The Chairman: How do you decide how much of your budget will be spent in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, the Gaspé, or P.E.I.? Is there a priority list that comes from your regional people that you want to address?
.1625
Mr. Godin: We're guided to a large degree by the historical precedent. Looking back over our cost records for the last 20 years, we know where our money has gone.
One of the key things we do is an audit every two years of our harbours right across Canada. We hire one engineer, who's usually an outsider. He does a statistically supportable sampling of all our harbours across the country. He surveys them in terms of the condition of the harbour, and whether the fishermen have the right kind of equipment, lights, winches and so forth. He surveys a number of them in British Columbia, Ontario, out west, Quebec, P.E.I., New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
From that survey we are able to determine where the different provinces fit relative to each other. If the harbours we find in Prince Edward Island are in the best condition in Canada, we know the province doesn't need more money. It might even lose a little to bring everybody down to the same level of harbour condition and services available. That's a way of making sure everybody gets the same slice of the pie.
In a survey done two years ago, we found that British Columbia's harbours were the best in the country. It wasn't because we were spending more money there; it was because of British Columbia's climate. Its seas are easier on its harbours than they are in Newfoundland. We found the harbours in Nova Scotia were near the bottom of the pile, along with Newfoundland's, so we gave them a slight increase in total dollars. That's really how we decide what dollar amount a regional director will get.
We've also agreed that we won't make any dramatic shifts of budget. We won't cut somebody's budget by 50%, because he'd have real trouble keeping up the regular maintenance, but we make subtle shifts in our budget every two years to ensure that we have a uniform level of service across the country. That's not to say they're all going to be in good condition, but they'll all have the same degree of goodness, if you like.
The regional directors then pick their harbours in each province. The worst ones that need it the most will get the money. To some degree, a certain amount of guessing goes on, because you put your budget together in November and the winter storms don't come until a little later, so when spring arrives you can get some real surprises.
The Chairman: Mr. Easter will probably want to know what happens when you're not in the budget and you have a problem.
Mr. Easter (Malpeque): I spend most of my time at the agriculture and HRD committees. Gerry said your department is showing some innovation, and I agree that's true. But I think there's a broader question here, which we have to look at in the agriculture and fisheries committees as well, and that's the difficulties various departments are facing - your section in particular and your department as a whole - as a result of budget changes.
You made the statement that the dollars saved by the harbour authorities will be put back in - maybe, maybe not. What guarantees do we have that the dollars will be put back in? The harbour authorities are doing a good job, but when they start turning to the provinces and ACOA because of a lack of federal moneys available to do whatever, I see that as problematic.
The federal government has a responsibility here. The Treasury Board, for whatever reason, looks at these expenditures as a cost rather than an investment. Sooner or later, if we keep going down this road, we're liable to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
My problem in terms of the progress, as a government backbencher, is that we have no way of getting at these people in terms of some of the decisions that are imposed on departments by some people crunching numbers. I think it's getting to the point of being pretty serious.
.1630
Has your department, in terms of your harbours and the impact on fishermen, done any impact studies of the changes pulling the whole scenario of things together? You have small craft harbour changes, you have coast guard fees, you have cost recoveries in other areas that will impact on fishermen, whether it's customs, duties or whatever. One cost recovery is not a problem, but I know in my general area I could face 42 separate cost recoveries. They get pretty damn expensive when you get up around 30.
Treasury Board is making decisions here and the department's doing this, Fisheries and Oceans is making changes here based on budgetary cutbacks and they're doing this. Somewhere this comes all together and the person who's impacted upon is the poor fisherman down there at the end who is really the creator of the wealth in the beginning. If that individual doesn't survive, then the system's in serious trouble. First of all, I need to know whether the department has done any impact studies in terms of the impact of all these changes we're talking about at the moment.
Mr. Godin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to defer answering the question by stating that this will be dealt with at tomorrow's session. Apparently one of the ADMs is prepared to discuss this.
Mr. Easter: That's a good political answer. Then, Mr. Chairman, I would hope you see that this question is answered tomorrow.
The other point related to that - and maybe it has to be asked tomorrow as well, Mike - is given this fact of where we're at and what I see within the next two years as increasing pressure on the producers, whether they're fishermen, farmers, forestry workers or whatever, is the department willing to monitor the situation and at least make recommendations to redress it, whether it means putting more money back into the system or whatever? I personally feel that committees such as this one need to be making some strong recommendations to the government as a whole in terms of this cost recovery's threatened impact. I expect that we can't deal with that one either.
Mr. Godin: That's right, Mr. Chairman. That's a question really for the deputy and the minister.
Mr. Easter: I will compliment the department in regard to the problem with sand we had at one of our ports, which I'm sure you're aware of, and now it looks as though the problem is being addressed this week. When, due to financial restraint, the department is going to the outer limit in terms of either doing wharf repairs.... I think Harry had an example - I forget Harry's figure, but it might cost $30,000 this year to fix a problem. Because we're going to the outer limit in terms of expenditure of funds and we're leaving it until the last possible moment, if the wharf or the breakwater or whatever gets hammered over the course of the winter or with rough seas, then we're not into a $30,000 expenditure, we're maybe into three or four times that.
The same applies to dredging when we're going to the outer limit. We did some investigation of how long it would take to through the normal system to get a port opened up where the boats couldn't get out one day, and it came up to 29 weeks and two days. These fishermen just aren't quite willing to wait this long for that to happen.
Is there any way or any means, or do we need changes in legislation that will either allow a ministerial exemption or a quick response? We're not in the 1960s and 1970s any more, when the money was there and you just asked for it. I could understand those regulations at that point in time, but now we need a quick response somehow. What do we have to do to get that quick response? Do we have to ask for new legislation? What do we have to do?
.1635
Mr. Godin: Mr. Chairman, just two weeks ago I was in discussion with Environment Canada, which is drafting new regulations under their environmental act that would affect dredging at places like Prince Edward Island. We're working on the problem with them. They're being as cooperative as they can be, but they're guided by the larger principles of Environment Canada, and while they may be able to help us out, I'm not exactly what you'd call optimistic.
Mr. Easter: If I may interject, do you see Environment Canada at the moment as part of the problem or part of the solution on this issue? In most cases here we're dealing with sea sand. We're not dealing with toxic waste in Halifax harbour or something.
Mr. Godin: That's quite true, but then again, you're dealing with environmentalists, and most of my people are construction engineers, that sort of thing; so you're dealing with two different mindsets. We want to do things and they want to protect the environment. I think there's a trade-off here, and I know our deputy and our ADM are also discussing this with Environment Canada because it's a bit of a sore point when we run into these situations. Environment Canada did fast-track it. Mind you, it took the good offices of a lot of people to make them fast-track it. They certainly wouldn't fast-track it if just somebody - as the officer in Prince Edward Island was doing - was complaining and asking for it. He certainly would not have received that same treatment. You'd be waiting your 29 weeks.
Mr. Easter: I certainly congratulate you on that area. I know where the environmentalists come from. I've worked with them a fair bit in a former life. I'll tell you, fishermen, farmers and others have been told that they have to get with the reality in terms of government expenditures, and I'd suggest that environmentalists have to get with the reality of the 1990s as well. If we're in these kinds of difficulties then we can't shut down a productive fishing port over regulations that are costly and in the instance of sea sand completely unnecessary. Why can't we get one permit for either the whole fishing zone, which would cover several ports in P.E.I., rather than having every port go through this song and dance?
Mr. Godin: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest perhaps that some official from Environment Canada might better be able to respond to these kinds of questions. I have my own views on the matter, but they're not those of an environmental expert.
Mr. Easter: So you're really admitting that they're part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Mr. Godin: I'm really not enough of an expert on environment to be able to make a definitive statement.
Mr. Easter: Thanks, Mike.
The Chairman: Just to follow up there, a lot of your work has to do with dredging harbours through the Gulf of St. Lawrence and especially the strait where every three or four years you have to dredge certain harbours and we have to go through the same process every time. As Wayne says, it's just sea sand. Why wouldn't one test every 10 or 15 years be sufficient? Why would we have to go through the same process to do the same work and take all that time? By the time the work is done, the fishing season is half over or three-quarters over. Sometimes it's entirely over.
There has to be some way, which you could suggest to this committee, whereby we could recommend to Environment to short-circuit that. This is not the Sydney tar ponds we're dealing with, this is clean sea sand that we have to do every three or four years. There has to be a better way to do it than we are at present. We'd like to get some suggestion from you to the committee on how we can facilitate making some changes here.
Mr. Godin: You're right. We have dredged and we do dredge. We spend a lot of money dredging every year and I can respect the environmentalists' concern. They do give us permits that are good, I believe, for three years. We test. The permit is good for three years. Then we have to go back and test again.
.1640
In the case of the one harbour in Prince Edward Island where we had the trouble, Malpeque, we were depending on the ice in the harbour to scour out the channel again this year. We normally dredge there about every four years. Our test, of course, was supposed to be done for next year, so we got caught by depending on mother nature to do some of our work for us.
I don't know why it wouldn't be possible to extend the period of time for which these permits are applicable. But then again, it's a question of Environment Canada's regulations and rules. They write them and we follow them.
The Chairman: Shouldn't we have some more influence than we appear to there? They're not God. Just because they're working for the Department of the Environment doesn't mean they control and their word is it.
Consider even the harbours you know, like Howards Cove, for example. We knew last year we had the money to do Howards Cove. This is near the end of June, and we still haven't got Howards Cove started. We won't get it started until probably the middle of July. At that time, the herring, mackerel and scallop seasons are over. We may get it done before the start of the fall lobster season. This is six to eight months after we had the cash in our hand.
There's got to be a better way. I hope this committee can help in putting something better together or some suggestions that you and the Department of the Environment can deal with. It's just frustrating for the fishermen. The next year the bloody sand is back, and we spent $150,000 for what? We can't even get a good full season of fishing out of a clean harbour.
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel: I would like to keep talking about dredging. If we hand these small harbours over to the Harbour Authority, will you continue to do the dredging? Will you retain responsibility for dredging?
[English]
Mr. Godin: Mr. Chairman, yes, we will continue to do the dredging at fishing harbours. The technical difficulties with doing the chemical testing and then getting ocean-dumping permits are for the time being pretty well beyond the capability of most harbour authorities. If it was the city of Montreal, we wouldn't worry. But, no, we will continue to do that.
Mr. Verran: Mike, I sympathize with you because of the position you have and the job you have to do. So the questions I'm asking you are not to zero in on your position personally by any means, but just on the wider DFO philosophy of things, which you come under in your department. It's also because of the frustrations of the people I represent. They bring them to me. I get more uptight than they do when I really see what takes place.
One time, in a response to one of the members, you mentioned the Province of New Brunswick coming to the aid of a certain project. It's nice for DFO, small craft harbours directorate, or the minister of the department to zero in on what I'm presuming are isolated cases like that. Certainly that's one case in New Brunswick, but it has certainly never been the case, I'm sure, in Nova Scotia. I doubt if it has ever been the case.
I'll tell you, the only wharf I know that the provincial government owns in Nova Scotia is a little wharf. If you're going there two weeks from now, you will see an eyesore. Drive between Digby and Weymouth. It's in Whale Cove. Talk about Environment - if they're going to be involved, they should be involved there, have that corrected and built up, make the province be responsible for the things they are responsible for and rebuild that wharf, or else have it taken away and clear the site out. It's a real eyesore as you go along that long stretch in Whale Cove between Digby and Weymouth, Nova Scotia.
So the province is not going to help us in South West Nova, that's for sure.
.1645
As for little businesses, you say they do better jobs. Mike, I know you're telling us that here, and that's the philosophy of your department. But somewhere along the line the buck stops, and it doesn't stop with you, even though you're the head of that branch. It's a whole philosophy of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The philosophy - and nobody has been kidded in the area I come from - is to get down to those little jobs. Have people helping to fill up this little hole here, or put half a dozen planks on the top up there. In the meantime, that's a band-aid approach or remedy. The wharves are being undermined from underneath.
Eventually, what we'll have is just what the philosophy of DFO is, which is to not have any of these little wharves any more and to not cater to these little fishermen that use them in those little villages. But surely we'll soon hear of a great project. There are going to be super-wharves. There will be three of them in South West Nova so that the big vessels and those offshore can tie up.
The little guys who have always relied on a living, as their fathers and grandfathers before them, don't have a way to make a living. Or at least if they do, they're probably going to revert to a haul-up on a bunch of railings that you cut in the woods in the winter. You lay them down there in the spring and try to haul your little boats up on them. That's the thing that frustrates me.
I'm not directing this personally to you, but I want it to be on the record, with DFO in particular, because this is the only place we can do it. People down home expect me to represent them and to push those ideas. I would like to have another avenue besides yourselves. I guess the only other place is the minister himself, and we've talked about that.
There's just so much. You've got a department. You're running a department, but there's only one person. From your response to our friend from Quebec, one person is hired. Everyone has a special name these days, so he's going to be some kind of an authority. He's hired to go make a survey of wharves from Vancouver and Victoria all the way around Newfoundland to P.E.I., New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. Jesus, it would take him all summer just to do the wharves in my area. So there's no way that person and that survey can be competent, truthful and something solid we can rely on. It's just absolutely physically impossible to do it.
This is the kind of stuff we get fed in the fishing communities. This is the reason the people in the fishing communities don't trust DFO. There's no trust left. I keep telling the people in the department, and the ministers personally when I have a chance, that this trust is gone.
We've got a terrible problem here for building up that trust again. I know people with the personality of Mike could go a long way in helping, but at the same time, he's restricted. He and his department are restricted because you say this is the frigging money you've got to operate with. In the meantime, you've got to pretend you're doing all those things for all those people. Well, you're not doing all those things. Small craft harbours directorate is not doing all those things for these small people. They're giving them band-aid treatment, which people know. They recognize it. They say we're giving, we're giving, we're giving, we're giving with more fees, more fees, more fees, and we're not getting anything back in return.
Those are some of the things we're faced with. I'm sorry, but I have to bring it up. As I said, it's not a personal matter. It's strictly a band-aid approach. Eventually, with the whole fishery, you're going to see three super-ports somewhere down on the east coast in Nova Scotia and all those little wharves will be gone.
I believe those people who use the facilities for the fishery, those who fish in those little Atlantic communities, who tell me that it's a plan. It's a plan that's been there, and it just rotates from one government to the next, and from one bureaucracy to the next to get rid of these small wharves and the small fishery in order to just have a couple of big super-ports and let the big offshores take it over and run it. Then you won't have any problems with all these little people any more - they're gone, they're history. And their way of life and the history of their families is gone with them.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Mike, I have a few questions just before we disband here.
.1650
I was wondering what percentage of your budget of $56 million is spent on dredging versus actual capital costs.
Mr. Godin: Dredging runs around $5 million a year.
The Chairman: That's $5 million out of $56 million.
Mr. Godin: Yes.
The Chairman: How much of that $56 million is still spent on pleasure harbours?
Mr. Godin: That would be $6.5 million.
The Chairman: We're divesting slowly.
Mr. Godin: That's right.
The Chairman: Are we making any headway there?
Mr. Godin: Yes. Out of 823, which I believe was the start number, 90 are gone and we've got another 90 in the sausage machine. They go through a rather lengthy process of consultation with receivers and that kind of thing. We've got another 90 in the system. We've got 180 -
The Chairman: Are you making any money divesting?
Mr. Godin: No, we're not. Divesting to municipalities is done at a nominal fee. We usually have to fix up the harbour prior to their getting it for that nominal fee. They take it on and have to run it as a public facility for five or ten years, depending on its condition. It's a minimum of five years, which is to prevent people from flipping real estate.
If they do that, they get it for the nominal fee. The costs have been averaging $50,000 to $100,000 for a site that we've divested. A lot of this is for administration, property surveys, and title searches, with some repair work.
The Chairman: I'd like to piggy back onto something Wayne asked but couldn't get answered, and that was on the accumulation of fees. What kinds of rates are the authorities that are in place charging their own fishermen to use that port?
Mr. Godin: It varies quite a bit. It's from as low as $50 a year per vessel to as high in some places as $800 for the season, which is three or four months. They provide security around the harbour and a lot of extra services that we had never provided, so you can't really compare it.
Again, for the fees they levy, they set their own standards, collect their own money, and keep 100% of what they collect. We don't take any money out of the harbour any more. Of what they put in, 100% stays at the harbour.
The Chairman: It's entirely up to them what they want to do or what they have to do?
Mr. Godin: Yes.
The Chairman: What they want to do with the wharf as far as spending is concerned?
Mr. Godin: That's correct.
The Chairman: Do a lot of them collect it and put it away over a three-year period while they are still getting some assistance from you, or are they spending it as it comes in?
Mr. Godin: They're pretty well spending it as it comes in. A few have generated a lot of money, but they're the exception.
The Chairman: Harold, do you have anything else?
Mr. Culbert: Yes, I have a quick question.
Mike, I think you were probably talking about me when you said that we even got some money from the province. I don't take any back seat at all in admitting it. We have to be very ingenious. We got it from about four or five different areas.
As you would know, to put together enough to do a little project.... We had to do that in one area again this year. We've got another one that's very similar. We've applied to all of them. I've been told, but haven't gotten official approval -
This is the final question. When you're in a partnership like that, hypothetically, DFO transfers its share of funds to the harbour authority. Does that then become the harbour authority's property as long as it's used for the specified purpose?
Mr. Godin: Yes.
Mr. Culbert: In the true sense of the word? As you know, I was told that and was concerned about it. I wanted to be assured by you. As you know, under DFO or the federal government a lot of these you can't apply for because you don't qualify.
I just wanted to be assured that there would be no complications with any of those partnerships. This harbour authority we're dealing with is the only portion that makes up their portion, if you will.
Mr. Godin: That's correct.
Mr. Culbert: But it's really DFO money.
Mr. Godin: Well, the lawyers will argue about what qualifies under the Financial Administration Act. Our justice adviser tells us that what we're doing is quite appropriate. No federal money or provincial money is ending up in the wrong hands. It's all for the intended purpose: it's a community facility. It's all open and above board.
.1655
The lawyers might like to argue about it, but we just tell them that it's okay, that it's being done in the open and in the clear, that the intention is right, and that the law, as far as we see it, is on our side.
Mr. Culbert: So in those types of partnerships, for all intents and purposes, the dollars that might be transferred over to DFO belong to the harbour authority.
Mr. Godin: That's right.
Mr. Culbert: Okay.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mike. I wish we had $50 million to spend.
Mr. Godin: So do I.
Mr. Easter: It will be no problem for this committee to recommend that.
The Chairman: If you do have any ideas on how we might short circuit the environment testing and the approval system, we would certainly appreciate receiving any you might have in that regard. I think as a committee we should go to Environment with some suggestions, because this is a recurring, frustrating problem we have, and not only with the emergencies, as I say, but also with the regular dredging we know we're going to do.
Mr. Godin: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I shall take that up with my staff.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned until tomorrow at 3:30 p.m.