FOPO Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 21, 2002

0915

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.))

Mr. James Gallant (Individual Presentation)

0920

0925

The Chair

Mr. David Lipton (Field Unit Superintendent, Parks Canada Agency)

0930

The Chair

Mr. David Lipton

0935

0940

The Chair

Mr. Jim Morriscey (Chief, Small Craft Harbours (Prince Edward Island), Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

0945

The Chair

Mr. Jim Morriscey

The Chair

Mr. James Gallant

Mr. David Lipton

The Chair

Mr. James Gallant

The Chair

Mr. James Gallant

The Chair

Mr. James Gallant

The Chair

0950

Mr. David Lipton

The Chair

Mr. David Lipton

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Jim Morriscey

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. Jim Morriscey

Mr. Andy Burton

The Chair

0955

Mr. Norman Peters (Individual Presentation)

Mr. James Gallant

Mr. Norman Peters

1000

Mr. James Gallant

Mr. Norman Peters

The Chair

Mr. James Gallant

The Chair

Mr. James Gallant

The Chair

Mr. James Gallant

The Chair

Mr. James Gallant

The Chair

Mr. James Gallant

The Chair

Mr. James Gallant

The Chair

Mr. James Gallant

The Chair

Ms. Micheline Leduc (Director, Harbour Operations and Engineering, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

Mr. Andy Burton

The Chair

Mr. David Lipton

The Chair

1005

Mr. David Lipton

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia--Matane, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. David Lipton

1010

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

The Chair

Mr. David Lipton

The Chair

Ms. Micheline Leduc

The Chair

Mr. Norman Peters

The Chair

Mr. Jim Morriscey

1015

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. David Lipton

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or--Cape Breton, Lib.)

Mr. Jim Morriscey

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Jim Morriscey

The Chair

Mr. Jim Morriscey

Mr. Cuzner

Mr. Jim Morriscey

1020

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Norman Peters

Mr. James Gallant

Mr. Jim Morriscey

Mr. James Gallant

Mr. Jim Morriscey

Mr. James Gallant

Mr. Jim Morriscey

Mr. James Gallant

The Chair

Mr. Norman Peters

The Chair

Mr. Norman Peters

The Chair

Mr. Norman Peters

The Chair

Mr. James Gallant

The Chair

Mr. Jim Morriscey

Mr. James Gallant

The Chair

Mr. Jim Morriscey

The Chair

Mr. James Gallant

1025

The Chair

Mr. David Lipton

The Chair

Mr. David Lipton

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore, NDP)

Mr. Norman Peters

Mr. James Gallant

1030

The Chair

Mr. James Gallant

The Chair

Mr. Jim Morriscey

Mr. James Gallant

The Chair

Mr. Jim Morriscey

The Chair

Mr. David Lipton

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

1035

The Chair

Ms. Micheline Leduc

The Chair

Mr. Jim Morriscey

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. James Gallant

1040

The Chair

Mr. James Gallant

The Chair

Mr. David Lipton

The Chair

Mr. Jim Morriscey

1045

The Chair

Mr. Jim Morriscey

The Chair

Mr. David Lipton

The Chair

Mr. James Gallant

The Chair

Mr. James Gallant

The Chair

Mr. Norman Peters

1050

The Chair

Ms. Micheline Leduc

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

NUMBER 040

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 21, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0915)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): There will be a member here shortly, so we'll call the meeting to order.

This is, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study of the management of the Little Harbour causeway issue.

This morning we welcome from Parks Canada Agency David Lipton, who is the field unit superintendent; as individuals, Norman Peters and James Gallant; and from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Madame Leduc, who's director of harbour operations and engineering, and Jim Morriscey, who's the chief, small craft harbours, Prince Edward Island.

Welcome, all. This is an issue that's been ongoing for 40 years. We had a request to hold a hearing on the issue, so we will do that today. I'd like to have Mr. Peters or Mr. Gallant give an overview, then we'll turn to Mr. Morriscey and Mr. Lipton, and then we'll go to questions.

I would say, for the witnesses, that the proceedings are recorded. There are a number of committee members travelling elsewhere and at other committees. They will get copies of the minutes, and then we, as a committee, will meet and make some recommendations, draft a letter, or whatever to those ministers we decide to give direction to.

Mr. Gallant.

Mr. James Gallant (Individual Presentation): First, I'd like to thank Wayne Easter for being the first to arrange for the standing committee to hear our concerns from the Greater Rustico area on the north side of P.E.I. I am James D. Gallant, co-chair of the Little Harbour Causeway working group, president of the North Queens Wildlife Federation, board member of the Gulf Shore Community Corporation, chair of the Robinson's Island Restoration Committee. Norman Peters is chairman of the Rustico Harbour Authority, president of the North Shore Fishermens Association, board member of the Gulf Shore Community Corporation, and chair of the Marine and Fisheries Museum Committee.

We are here today to present the concerns of residents in the Gulf Shore region of Prince Edward Island, as well as the fishers and shellfishers whose livelihoods are directly affected by the current conditions caused by the causeway, which was built by the federal government, Parks Canada and Public Works, in 1956 to Robinson's Island from Brackley Beach.

The building of this causeway has been a mistake from day one. Even prior to the construction in 1952 the Mazur report, authored by Dr. S.J. Mazur, associate professor of civil engineering, Nova Scotia Technical College, and supported by field work subsidized by the Department of Public Works, Ottawa, stated that it would be necessary to construct a second eastern breakwater that would reinforce and protect the western end of the island, to safeguard against instability. This expert advice was not heeded, and a breakwater was not included in the subsequent plans.

In 1962, just six years after the construction of the causeway, the National Research Council--Philpott--responded to worsening coastal erosion and conducted three studies using wave-board models that recommended the site for an eastern breakwater. These studies had as a baseline the 1956 conditions, prior to the building of the causeway.

Again, in 1979 the sand movement study by Fenco Consultants Ltd, commissioned by DFO, identified the main problem facing the Rustico harbour entrance as the erosion of Rustico Island. In this study Fenco noted that Department of Public Works sounding charts from 1918 to 1979 confirmed Philpott's and Mazur's research about channel depth deterioration, and recommended hydraulic modelling of the harbour for planning and design of remedial work. Again and again, over five decades, there is scientific evidence that there have been substantial negative effects from the building of the causeway. In 1990 the Baird and Associates report, the North Rustico sediment transport study, suggested the setting up of an eastern breakwater.

Over these years we have been calling continually for government support to act on the evidence. From 1956 until the present more than two kilometres of Robinson's Island have eroded. This has resulted in siltation and water quality problems in two of the biggest watersheds, the Hunter-Clyde and Wheatley River, and their estuaries on the north side, with resultant loss in the shellfish and fin fish fisheries. During this time residents and fishers worked to have the problem solved. The National Parks Act states that National Parks will remedy and prevent any obstruction of waterways covered under Parks designation for fishing. That gives them a direct responsibility.

The North Queen's Wildlife Federation submitted an official brief in 1995 to the Honourable Sheila Copps asking for action and suggesting a three-point plan. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage responded by setting up a working group, co-chaired by the North Queens Wildlife Federation and Parks Canada, to review the issue and forward recommendations to her department.

¿ (0920)

The working group was given a specific mandate and was resourced for scientific data collection, in response to a firm written commitment from the Prime Minister in a letter to the Premier of Prince Edward Island, the Honourable Pat Binns, in 1997. In that letter the Prime Minister pledged that Canadian Heritage and Public Works and Government Services, cooperating with scientists from Geological Survey of Canada, Acadia University, and the Bedford Institute of Oceanography, would gather “the scientific data that is required to complete the government's review.... Through the continued efforts of the federal government, the Working Group and the various community groups involved, I feel confident that we will arrive at an environmentally sound solution that all parties support.”

In 1998 the working group endorsed by the Prime Minister in 1997, from evidence based on several scientific studies, released its report. This working group was co-chaired by James Gallant, representing the North Queens Wildlife Federation, and Dave Lipton, representing Parks Canada. This working group had representatives of shellfishers, lobster catchers, groundfishers, environmental groups, and other stakeholders. The working group commissioned several scientific studies and agreed upon a set of recommendations, which were intended to address the problems in three phases.

Phase one involves construction of an eastern breakwater designed to maintain traditional channel depth of 10 to 12 feet by tidal flushing. After the building of the eastern breakwater, the situation would be monitored for a period of two or three years. Depending on those monitoring results, determination would be made of the necessity of implementing phases two and three.

These recommendations were prepared on November 26, 1998. They were forwarded by Parks Canada to Minister Copps. We have seen no action since then, other than discussions between federal departments about accountability.

We are very concerned about this, for economic reasons. In our entire Gulf Shore region we have a total combined landing of cod, groundfish, pelagic, and estuarial valued in excess of $5 million. This is a small fraction of what could have been our traditional fishery if our water depth had been maintained over these last 40 years.

There have been ongoing negotiations with retired Senator Joe Landry, as well as with the federal and provincial governments, about a possible state-of-the-art crab processing facility in Rustico, if the depth of the harbour is restored. This has the potential of creating badly needed new jobs in the area.

We are also presently embarking on a regional eco-tourism strategy, the focal point being the million dollar marina and fisheries museum now being built in North Rustico. We are presently looking at pleasure boats, but an extensive P.E.I. marine tourism study has recommended that “this harbour could form the core of the hundred mile network if Parks Canada corrects harbour access/causeway. It could also be a future destination marina.” A destination marina is the highest level of marina identified in the study, and this type of development could open up a very substantial market for the entire North Shore region. Recent exit surveys by the Department of Tourism have indicated that as many as 471,000 visitors travel to the Gulf Shore region from May to October. Further degradation of the gulf and watersheds could harm this vital tourism sector.

We're also concerned about safety and water quality. Last fall some of our fishers actually got stuck coming into the harbour. Rustico is the province's number one tourist port, with 10 chartered boats available for deep-sea fishing trips. It's only a matter of time before there is a tragedy. We feel it is a responsibility of the federal government to correct this problem, which was precipitated by the building of the causeway by Parks Canada.

¿ (0925)

1992 the P.E.I. Department of Environmental Resources documented seasonal siltation problems in Rustico Bay and the Wheatley River estuary that result in loss of fish habitat, eutrophic conditions, bacterial contamination, odour problems, and fish mortality. Some of this can be attributed to farming practices, and we, as a Island society, are addressing this aspect. However, the hydrodynamics research by Brylinki in 1997 indicates that the causeway has been a major culprit. Since the causeway was built to Robinson's Island in 1956, all the watersheds have been affected by poor flush conditions. This is everyone's problem, because it affects one of the economic mainstays of the 16 communities in our region, including both lobster and shellfish operations, and it also affects the environment of the entire region.

There are compelling reasons for addressing this issue immediately, and the community as a whole is anxious for action. We would like assurances that the recommendations of the working group, mandated and endorsed by the Prime Minister and supported by science, will be acted upon immediately. We include as part of this brief the official report of the working group, which should serve as the basis for future action.

I guess my ten minutes are up.

The Chair: You're doing pretty well, James, but that's the main part of your submission, and the appendix people can look at when they have time.

I now turn to you, Mr. Lipton. For the benefit of the committee, I'm familiar with the island and how it looks. I know you have pictures, which we hope will work.Then I'll come to you, Jim.

Dave, the floor is yours.

Mr. David Lipton (Field Unit Superintendent, Parks Canada Agency): I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to come here, along with my co-chair, James Gallant, and clarify the situation as it currently stands in Prince Edward Island regarding this particular issue.

What I have is a collage of photos, and I might as well do those quickly first, and then I'll come back to a statement on behalf of our department.

[Video Presentation]

In 1935 Parks Canada established Prince Edward Island National Park on Prince Edward Island. It was on the north shore. To the far left here, where the arrow is, you can see the North Rustico harbour entrance James Gallant was talking about. In 1935 that entrance was fairly clear. I'm going to point out an eastern breakwater that existed at the time, the approximate location. That was an eastern breakwater at the end of the island. You can see sedimentation forming to the west of that. You can see where there was a sediment deposit already extending out into the harbour area, and the breakwater was above the high-water mark at that time. It was built of sandstone, and there was some deterioration taking place, obviously, because sandstone doesn't stand up to the environmental issues. Prince Edward Island National Park no longer uses sandstone protection for any of its headlands, because it's better for the natural processes to take place and to leave the coastline to coastal dynamics.

To the east side is the Little Harbour entrance. You can see the channel coming down on the east side here, a smaller channel, but it was also used by fishermen at the time. It was an exit from the bay and the Wheatley River. That particular channel was the one with the causeway to the island. It was approximately 55 metres across at that time.

Parks Canada decided in 1955 to conform with its management plans for the site and build a highway from one end to the other of the national park. That particular highway had to bridge several areas. One was the Cove Head area, which is not shown on this slide, further to the east. This particular Little Harbour entrance we had to bridge, and then there was a plan to bridge North Rustico harbour as well, to allow for extended linear travel across the park. It was a scenic coastal drive called the Gulf Shore Parkway. Any of you who have been to Prince Edward Island have driven that highway and understand that it's a straight line along the coast.

So the Cove Head bridge was constructed. When they got down to the Little Harbour entrance, a decision was made to use causeway technology at the time. The Canso Causeway was going in, North River Causeway, West River Causeway; other causeway constructions were being used right across the Maritimes to lower the cost of bridging and to ensure that we had a stable road bed. So that particular causeway was put in at that time, 1955, and a decision was made to extend the road beyond there, across the island, down to North Rustico harbour, where we would complete the bridge construction across the harbour entrance.

This is what it looked like at the east after we had constructed the causeway. You can see it's closed over now, and road construction has started along the island--that little white band in the middle of the island. You can see where we've stopped when we've got to the sand spit, which is the lighter shade that extends to the west. The engineers at that time were contemplating whether road construction would be feasible on what they perceived to be an unstable environment, with that sand spit itself and the deterioration that was starting to occur. And you can see it's more pronounced in 1958 at the end.

¿ (0930)

It went from about 60 metres wide to 90 metres wide at that time, after 1956, at the North Rustico harbour entrance, but that receded later on as sand sedimentation continued, with dredging issues at the North Rustico entrance.

A decision was made not to construct the road to the end of the sand spit, but to use route 6 to go around Rustico Bay and gain access to the western end of the park, and that decision prevented us from extending the road any further along that sand spit. We did actually go down another one and a half to two kilometres along the sand spit, but it became too unstable to continue.

The Chair: It made a great drag strip in the 1970s, Dave.

Mr. David Lipton: Yes, it did. Some of us have used it.

You can see the extension of the road there on that side in 1968, but you can also see as more pronounced the deterioration that was starting to occur around the tip and sand movement that was going into the bay and closing off the channel coming out of the Wheatley estuary system to the east and into the North Rustico area.

The island storms we have in October also have a pronounced effect on the stabilization of our sand dune processes. Sand dunes tend to move and evolve so as to protect themselves, and so between wind and storm situations, you can have an over-wash. It might come back and repair itself through sediment transfer the next year, or it might not come back and repair itself. But the evolution of that was critical.

This is 1977. You can see the deterioration is extending back, and as Mr. Gallant was indicating, we're starting to lose sections of the road at this time, and in total, we lost one and a half to two kilometres of road back towards the island.

In 1990 you can see its further recession, but what's more important, you can see a buildup of the sand sedimentation in North Rustico harbour beginning. That buildup is attaching itself to the mainland base on the south shore of the bay, and that was a continuing problem for us in the 1990s as we were observing that, and it was a cause of concern for fishermen entering and exiting the area.

In the year 2000, which is the last set of aerial photos we have, you can clearly see there are two breaches. North Rustico harbour entrance is much narrower for access, and to the west, before you get to the island, there's another breach there, which is maintaining itself at this point and allowing clear navigation; it's rather shallow there, but there is a depth that extends out into the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

This bay area is full of mussel beds at this time. These mussel beds are a critical environmental issue in that area as well. They support an approximately one million dollar industry at this time, but the spat growth in this particular area is extremely sensitive to water temperature, and one of the issues that came to light near the end of the scientific studies was that more study would be required for the mussel fishermen before we were able to remove the causeway itself, to alleviate the concerns they had about change in temperature. One degree change in the temperature could destroy mussel spat, and this is one of the best areas on Prince Edward Island for mussel spat growth. I'll leave it to my fisheries colleague to explain that.

So that gives you an idea what it looks like today. This is what we started with in 1935. The deterioration has stabilized at this point, and from that point of view, the interest of Parks Canada was in participating in this group to ensure the safety of the fishers and to get a better understanding of the water quality in the bay, as a result of some of the sand deposition in the bay that resulted from a significant storm event in 1976-1977.

I want to reiterate a couple of things we're pointing out here today. Our department is extremely concerned, in relation to the National Parks Act and its activities, that we do not affect the safety of other industries. From our point of view, we have this particular issue before us. The minister did authorize a working group to look at the situation concerning the safety of the fishers in the area, and the secondary issue was the water quality of the bay. Both of those were mandated to the committee, and funding resources were made available to us to do the scientific studies. The best coastal scientists in the world, as far as we were concerned, definitely in North America, from the Bedford Institute of Oceanography and the Acadia Water Centre, were used to analyse the bay, water quality issues, and the sand transfer sedimentation issues associated with the dynamics of this.

¿ (0935)

The three phase proposal that was put forward by the North Queens Wildlife Federation included rebuilding the sand spit you see there, opening up Little HarbourCauseway, and establishing an eastern breakwater to maintain channel flows, so that the dredging requirements associated with that could be maintained as well. That would provide safe passage for fishers trying to enter the area.

Our department was concerned about the safety of the fishers, and we proceeded with the studies with that as an underlying principle. At the conclusion of the studies, which came out in 1998, we received the scientific information, James and I as co-chairs, along with our committee, which represented all stakeholders, including the MP office, which was kept informed by their participation. With that particular area and the concern we had, the scientists actually recommended that we build the eastern breakwater first and monitor the sand deposition. Once we had security and understanding of the sand deposition, we could go ahead with the remainder of the plan and reconstruct the sand spit and open up Little Harbour entrance.

The committee accepted these recommendations and forwarded them to the minister. The minister subsequently forwarded a correspondence to Minister Anderson of Fisheries and Oceans indicating that the Fisheries and Oceans participation in this would include a breakwater construction activity on the eastern side of that harbour entrance, as Parks Canada's mandate was to protect the natural heritage resources and cultural resources of the national park. Fisheries and Oceans accountability would be in the area of breakwater construction and maintenance. We did not receive a response from Fisheries and Oceans until the year 2000, when the Honourable Herb Dhaliwal responded, saying that Fisheries and Oceans had indicated to our minister that they had determined that there was safe passage in the channel for the fishers and it was not necessary to proceed with this particular type of activity. To this our minister, Minister Copps, responded to the working group and the people who were involved as stakeholders that no further action would be taken by Parks Canada without the initiation of action on behalf of Fisheries and Oceans.

That concludes my remarks.

¿ (0940)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lipton.

Mr. Morriscey.

Mr. Jim Morriscey (Chief, Small Craft Harbours (Prince Edward Island), Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Rustico is located in the central portion of the north shore of Prince Edward Island, adjacent to the Prince Edward Island National Park. The main industries in this location are fishing and tourism. Small Craft Harbours has an inshore fishing harbour at North Rustico, which consists of several facilities, including wharves, breakwaters, shore protection, and a slipway. There are approximately 39 vessels and 100 fishers at this harbour. The fleet ranges in size from 35 to 44 feet in length. The draught of these vessels is in the 1.25 to 1.5 metre range. All aspects of the local fishery are pursued from this location, as well as deep-sea tourist operations during the summer months.

In 1956 Rustico Island, part of the national park, was connected to the existing dune system by the construction of a causeway known as the Little Harbour Causeway. Prior to this construction the estuaries were interconnected, and the exchange of tidal waters took place through two entrance channels, the Little Harbour Inlet and North Rustico Channel, located to the east and west of Rustico Island respectively. Scientific studies on the effects of the construction of the causeway predicted significant erosion of Rustico Island unless a system of breakwaters and groynes was built and maintained at the western end of Rustico Island. These structures were built, and Parks Canada ensured their maintenance until the late 1960s.

During this period the erosion and changes within Rustico Bay and Rustico Channel were minimized. Tidal flow through the North Rustico Channel initially increased after the construction of Little Harbour Causeway, but new channels began to develop across the west end of Rustico Island in the late 1960s, when the maintenance of the breakwaters and groynes ceased. Much of the tidal and river flow from the Wheatley estuary subsequently became diverted through these new channels. The new channels eventually began to migrate in an easterly direction, and in the process, nearly three kilometres of the western end of Rustico Island became severely eroded. Much of the eroded material has accumulated as a sand bar between North Rustico and Anglo Rustico, and it has led to the present condition, where the two estuaries now constitute nearly separate systems, one draining the Wheatley River and one draining the Hunter River.

The result of these changes has been a decrease in the navigability of the North Rustico Channel and the main entrance to North Rustico harbour. These changes have also resulted in a decrease in water quality within Rustico Bay, because of reduced tidal flows. From the 1970s to the late 1980s Fisheries and Oceans conducted maintenance dredging of the harbour entrance channel. In 1989 a hydraulic model was carried out. This model recommended that Fisheries and Oceans not try to maintain the historical entrance channel, but rather let a natural channel alignment occur. This approach was adopted by Fisheries and Oceans, and no dredging has taken place since that time. The depths provided by the natural channel alignment meet the needs of the inshore fishing fleet more than 90% of the time. It is estimated that the local vessels operating from this location lose an average of seven to nine fishing days during the two-month lobster fishing season, which is May and June, during inclement conditions. This is comparable with other fishing locations along the north shore of P.E.I.

In conclusion, the Rustico inshore fishing fleet has been operating under these conditions for the past 10 to 15 years. It is Fisheries and Oceans' responsibility to ensure that Rustico commercial fishers have safe passage to and from their harbour. Consequently, minor land-based dredging is undertaken periodically, and the western breakwater is maintained in good repair.

¿ (0945)

The Chair: Just for the record, Jim, that western breakwater was really rebuilt in the last three years, right?

Mr. Jim Morriscey: Within the last three to five years, Mr. Chairman, yes.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Morriscey.

We'll turn to questions, but James, you had a point you wanted to make first.

Mr. James Gallant: On that letter Dave received from Dhaliwal, the explanation he gave of it is partly right; it more or less suits Parks Canada's way of deciphering it. Dhaliwal said, in two words of the letter--have you got it there Dave?

Mr. David Lipton: I have.

The Chair: Do you know what letter it is?

Mr. James Gallant: It's the one from Dhaliwal to Sheila Copps.

The Chair: And it was July 11, 2000?

Mr. James Gallant: Yes.

The Chair: In any event, maybe--

Mr. James Gallant: I remember it.

The Chair: Well, I have a question on it before I turn to you, Mr. Burton, and it's on that letter.

It's a letter from Minister Dhaliwal, who was then Minister of Fisheries, to Minister Copps. I think one of the key areas in the letter is the third paragraph. I'll read it into the record. He says:

Firstly, the scientific work funded by your Department and recommendations of the working group clearly indicate that the channel and bay areas have deteriorated dramatically since the closure of Little Harbour channel by Parks Canada in 1956. In my view, funding of the works proposed should logically fall to the organization responsible for the original intervention. Secondly, while incidental but limited benefit would accrue to users of our North Rustico Harbour, existing channel water depth is considered by my regional Small Craft Harbours officials to be within acceptable safety levels for our current clients under normal circumstances.

It goes on from there. I think the key point Minister Dhaliwal raises with the Minister of Heritage is that “funding of the works proposed should logically fall to the organization responsible for the original intervention”.

Dave, this is the letter from the Minister of Fisheries to Minister Copps dated July 11, 2000. I do not have her response. I don't know if you have one. This was just copied to me. So for the purpose of the committee, when we review this later, I wonder if it's possible for both departments to forward to the clerk correspondence over the last couple of years related to this matter. If they're not affected by cabinet confidentiality, we'd appreciate receiving the various pieces of correspondence. I'm not sure whether this letter was responded to, and in fairness to you, Dave, you may not even know if it was responded to, but somebody within the department should find out. Is that fair? Do you have anything you want to add, Dave?

¿ (0950)

Mr. David Lipton: No, that's fine. The first letter I was referring to was the one Sheila Copps sent to you on December 8, indicating where the safety issue had been addressed by Dhaliwal.

The Chair: Right.

Mr. David Lipton: Dhaliwal's letter did indicate that his department was unwilling to participate financially.

The Chair: All right. Any of that correspondence either department has, we'd like to get copies, then we can review it.

Mr. Burton.

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you hit the nail on the head. I think this is the classic case of one ministry versus another. Who is going to carry the ball here? It's not coming out of my budget, it's coming out of your budget. So in the end nothing happens.

I'm from the west coast, and I'm not familiar with this particular area, so it's a little difficult for me, but I think we have similar problems on the west coast in respect of ongoing maintenance of small craft harbours; the whole system of downloading and off-loading and so on has been going on for some time. But this is the fisheries committee, and I guess my concern is there. We heard about these oyster beds, for example, and I think there was mention of other fisheries that are adversely affected in Mr. Gallant's statements, the shellfish, crabs, lobsters, and so on, and some fin fish. Does not the Department of Fisheries have some concerns about these issues? If so, why would they not be looking to address them, because it is Fisheries' mandate to protect and enhance the fishery resource? So I guess that's my question. Do you not have concerns, and if so, what would you intend to do about them?

The Chair: Mr. Morriscey.

Mr. Jim Morriscey: As I mentioned in my opening statement, the days that the Rustico fishers have access to the Gulf of St. Lawrence for their day-to-day fishing operations are comparable to other locations along the north shore. Traditionally, pretty well every harbour location would have some downtime related to storm conditions and bad entrance to their harbour locations. Typically, on the north shore of P.E.I. there are two to three sandbars within the first half to quarter mile from the entrance channel, and in heavy sea conditions vessels have difficulty travelling over that area. So as to whether the department has concerns, for the last 20 years there's been a progressive increase in the landed value for the resource, and access is not a problem. It's manageable.

Mr. Andy Burton: I don't really think that's what I was getting at with my question. Are youe more from the engineering department of Fisheries?

Mr. Jim Morriscey: I am from Small Craft Harbours.

Mr. Andy Burton: Maybe what we require is some more technical information from the biologists and so on as to whether there are impacts on the fishery. If you're in the engineering department, that's a little different issue for you.

My question was, are there adverse impacts on the fishery due to the sedimentation--and I see a head nodding over there--that's been created by these engineering problems over the years? That's probably the crux of the matter in my mind, Mr. Chairman. If these engineering problems, though initially from Parks Canada, are creating habitat problems, it becomes a DFO matter. I think this is what we have to sort out, who is ultimately responsible and how we deal with it, if there's a fishery habitat concern, and I think there may be.

The Chair: I know Norman, who is a fisherman in the area, wants to come in, but I'll add to Mr. Burton's question. Initially, I believe there was a shellfishery of some type in the inner harbour that was affected by the construction of a causeway. Further to that, as I understand it, now there are some blue mussels being farmed in that harbour that may or may not be affected, should changes be made to the causeway at this time.

We'll start with you Norman, and then we'll go to anyone else who might want to add further information.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Norman Peters (Individual Presentation): Mr. Chairman, I guess I've been fishing out of Rustico for up to 40 years now. I've seen quite the changes. I was the first one on the committees in the 1970s, I guess, to start a fight to try to get something done with Little Harbour Causeway. We sat around a table similar to this. Most of the people I sat with are dead now. Everybody was passing the buck, Parks, Fisheries, Public Works--we didn't do it., we're not going to fix it, we know it's a problem. So we're back here again, and apparently, this is not going to die until it's fixed up--until one of us dies, probably.

I remember being able to go out to Rustico Harbour in eight, nine, ten feet of good water. Since that causeway went in, it's not the only cause of the sand movement, of course, but it's 90%. We can bring you in witnesses if you want, fishermen who have fished for years through that and know the economic benefits we've lost over the years, the jobs.

Senator Landry was down in the 1980s and wanting to bring crab boats in; he could make year-round jobs at the harbour with a new plant and everything. But we didn't have the water, as everything was deteriorating. And he said, if you ever get eight, nine, ten feet of good water, it's 11 hours to sail these crab boats into Lemèque, and three hours to come into Rustico, which would make quite a difference. I know there's a bit of controversy. Some people would say fishermen would never allow him to bring his crab boats from one to another. He processed lobsters down at Rustico for a number of years, so that happened.

But with the harbour now, to go out, you've pretty near got to run into the breakwater. You have to go right along the main breakwater, because it's filled up so bad. Jim was talking about its being comparable to other harbours. Other harbours are a nature thing, this was man-made. This was caused by man in 1956. They were told not to do it, there was no need to do it, it would change the structure of our harbour completely. And it did. It's ongoing.

Yes, we may always have a narrow entrance to get in and out. I'm in the deep-sea fishing business. I've been doing that for 30 years, taking out tourists three trips a day, and they're astounded. They said, how, in the name of time, are you allowed to even navigate out here? We're hitting bottom at low tide. We hope the tide is high when we go out, so we don't hit bottom.

Over the years there's been such a long fight to try to get something done that I don't know, you kind of get worn out sometimes. But like James, I'm stubborn and I've been at it for quite a number of years.

It contributed to the siltation of all the bays. At the time causeways were the thing to put in, in the 1950s and 1960s. Now government is taking them out as fast as they can. One example is the West River on P.E.I. They took out the causeway, and that river was revitalized, it was back to the way it was, beautiful--it was dead before. James has been working on this type of thing for years too, trying to get stuff restored like this, the rivers and the trout streams and that, because we're losing them all.

And Oyster Bed Bay, that was a big--

Mr. James Gallant: Oyster Bed Bay--you can't get one now, they're under 10 feet of silt.

Mr. Norman Peters: You can't get one. Everything is sanded up. It's all silted up.

À (1000)

Mr. James Gallant: It's sand there.

Mr. Norman Peters: And 90% is caused by Little Harbour. But we're not saying, go down and blow up Little Harbour. What we're talking about are the three phases: build the eastern breakwater and monitor it for a number of years. If that's not working, there is a problem. Maybe that little harbour has to come out, and we'll get a better flow of water going there.

There's so much a fellow could tell. I don't know if I should say this or not, but we had an opportunity to meet with Ms. Copps. Wayne Easter set up a meeting. Your mom died and the meeting couldn't take place. So I met her at the airport. I made that a point: it is too good of a chance in P.E.I.; I'll never see her again. I talked to her about this for a minute, and she didn't have a clue what I was talking about. She thought it was some other thing on the Island, up there or down there. I said, no, it's Robinson's Island, Little Harbour Causeway, Rustico Island. “Oh, it's something about an old bridge.” “Yes,” I said, “it's something about an old bridge.” She said, “Give me a name or two.” The next day I got a call from her office: “You had the gall to accost a minister at a airport.” I said, “I just said, Ms. Copps, could I talk to you for a minute?” And he said, “You shouldn't have done that. You talked to a federal minister.” I said, “It seems to me she's getting paid by us poor little people in the world.”

That's the way things have been going. I'm not blaming Wayne or anything like that. But she should have at least had the common courtesy to say, listen, Norm, I'm busy, write me a little letter quickly. We've written her letters and letters. and we can't get anything back. So here we are.

The Chair: Yes, Norman, that's one of the reasons. Whatever letters can be made available to us on the issue, we'll have each department table them with us.

Mr. Gallant, very briefly.

Mr. James Gallant: I told Wayne, we know somebody's lying, we know Sheila Copps has lied or actually is lying.

The Chair: James, I'm not going to accept that. I don't think anybody has lied. There may be some confusion over the issue, but I'm not going to accept the minister's being called a liar, or any member of Parliament for that matter. There's a problem in information, and we'll try to sort it out.

Mr. James Gallant: But do you remember writing her a letter on December 1--

The Chair: That's right.

Mr. James Gallant: --and receiving an answer on December 8 as if she never read it, though her name was signed to it?

The Chair: That's true, but I will--

Mr. James Gallant: Who signed it? Who wrote the letter?

The Chair: I don't want to get into accusations, James. I want to see if we can find a path to solve the problem here. Water that has gone under the bridge is under the bridge. Let's look ahead.

Mr. James Gallant: Three months later she told J.P. Landry the same thing she told Norman before the election.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. James Gallant: Did she read any of the letter she received?

The Chair: We'll find out. I don't know. I know the minister is busy.

Mr. James Gallant: That's what I want to find out.

The Chair: Does Mr. Lipton or Mr. Morriscey have anything to add on Mr. Burton's question?

Madame Leduc.

Ms. Micheline Leduc (Director, Harbour Operations and Engineering, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I have a short comment I'd like to make in response to your point.

In the letter from Mr. Dhaliwal to Sheila Copps there is an indication that the DFO is quite prepared to assist in such things as are covered by the Navigable Water Protections Act and the fish habitat issue. So there is a recognition from the department that we may have a role to play when it comes to the fishery, maybe helping out in defining a restoration plan, solving mitigation, or that kind of issue.

Mr. Andy Burton: I think that probably this is where we're heading with this thing. There's obviously a joint responsibility here, probably between DFO, both engineering and biologists, and Parks Canada. It's a matter of trying to sort that out, rather than passing the buck. Let's see if we can't come to a solution.

The Chair: Mr. Lipton.

Mr. David Lipton: Mr. Chair, Parks Canada has been a willing participant in this since 1997. We've put more than $300,000 into the scientific studies that were done. They are also timely studies. From the evidence on the dynamics of the coastline, things are changing. So the initiative was to solve this quickly, and Minister Copps did send a letter over to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans at that time. Parks Canada has been a part of this co-chaired committee. We are willing to accept the recommendations of the committee in the order they were prescribed by the scientists, but resources in our program are dedicated to the protection of the natural environment and the species at risk along the coastline of Prince Edward Island, they're not for safe access to harbours. I think the breakwater is the issue, and that's where we're going.

The Chair: I've got a question. Rustico-Robinson's Island is part of the national park system. Does that change anything, in that this is all happening within the national park to a certain extent--I guess Rustico Harbour is not? Does that change anything in the responsibility of DFO or Parks Canada, in your opinion?

À (1005)

Mr. David Lipton: The chair is requesting my opinion on this prickly issue. The facts state clearly that the causeway did have some interaction and responsibilities associated with the deposition and migration of sand. But Parks Canada's area of responsibility is land-based, the national park and the existing land base we have currently. It's what you see in the slide on the screen on that island. On the extension of that to the harbour, issues associated with the solution, we were a partner. We did participate, and we are willing to continue with that participation. Resourcing the breakwater is the first step.

The Chair: I don't want to elaborate on this and will turn to you, Mr. Roy, but in the letter from Minister Dhaliwal to Minister Copps, Minister Dhaliwal says clearly , “In my view, funding of the works proposed should logically fall to the organization responsible for the original intervention”, which, in fact, is Parks Canada. I guess we're going to have to wait and see how the minister responded to that particular point.

Monsieur Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia--Matane, BQ): That's what my question was about. In fact, Parks Canada won't do anything because it's not responsible for that and Fisheries and Oceans says it will do whatever it's responsible for. My question is a follow up to the chair's question. Will we have to create a third department to get you to agree?

The problem has been there for years, and the solution has been know for years, but the two departments don't seem to be able to get together to solve that problem. I'm half joking, but I suggest we create a third department to get you to agree. We'll have to do something because the problem will never be solved otherwise.

My comment is for Mr. Lipton from Parks Canada, as well as Mr. Morriscey from Fisheries and Oceans.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Lipton.

Mr. David Lipton: I'll let Mr. Morriscey respond to that as well, but let me go back to the studies first. The studies clearly indicated there was potential for the North Queens Wildlife Federation proposal to be successful, it did not guarantee that success. So there are no guarantees here, it's a potential, and that's why the monitoring process was implemented and recommended by the scientists, so we could go cautiously on this. But it does affect the first element.

The second point is that we have a species at risk, the piping plover, in the area of the small harbour entrance. From a national park point of view, the sand deposition on the north side of that causeway is a habitat for that, and interventions in that area could be difficult later on too. But we are agreeable to looking at that and going forward with the proposal as stated.

Our response was clear at the beginning of this exercise: we were concerned about the safety of the fishers. However, the intervention of the causeway is only a part of the problem. If you remember, in 1935, when the park was established, there was already some deterioration evident at the very tip of the sand spit, where there was a sand deposition occurring, so the eastern breakwater at that time was not effective. In the modelling we did in the studies there's a recommendation that the old eastern breakwater not be replaced, that a new alignment of that breakwater, from the hydrology that was done on this and the modelling that was done, be established, to ensure that we have appropriate sand deposition and that the harbour does not end up suffering from volumes of water going in and out through the tidal flows. There was a realignment recommended by Baird and Associates in the establishment of that eastern breakwater, so it became clear that the old eastern breakwater was not appropriate, it was not doing its job at that time, but it's now clear that we need to realign the eastern breakwater if we're going to maintain an effective entrance at that site.

All this hinges on the safety of the fishers, from our point of view, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has indicated--and we've heard it again here today--that there is safe passage there for the fishers to maintain their industry.

À (1010)

The Chair: Mr. Roy, go ahead, and then we'll go to Mr. Morriscey.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: It's just a comment. In short, what you're telling us is that Heritage Canada won't act on the conclusions of the study that has been done. In other words, you recognize there's one part of that study you agree on, but there's another part you're questioning for now. That's what you're telling us. So you don't want to follow up on the recommendations from the study that was submitted to you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Lipton.

Mr. David Lipton: That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that Parks Canada participated fully in this particular process. We accepted the recommendations of the committee. We forwarded the recommendations to the minister. Two departments are involved here, and we are prepared to go ahead and participate, provided the other department participates under its jurisdiction as well.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lipton.

Madame Leduc.

[Translation]

Ms. Micheline Leduc: I would like to mention to the committee that, in the last three to five years or so, the department of Fisheries and Oceans has invested approximately $850,000 in repairs to the west breakwater. Therefore, I think we're really taking our responsibilities seriously to make sure that the entrance channel is protected, that there's enough water and that it's wide enough to let the boats go through. It's a long term commitment for us. That breakwater is essential to the survival of the channel. We will therefore continue to maintain it and to do whatever has to be done.

It's a bit difficult for us, at Fisheries and Oceans, to agree with what is being said because we are not at the root of the problem; it is therefore difficult to take on the responsibility to restore it. I had to say it. I think we're ready to do something from a scientific perspective and to give our scientific support to the project, but if you're talking about a financial participation to restoration and dredging, I'm not sure you're asking the right department.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Peters or Mr. Gallant, did you want to give your thoughts on that?

Mr. Norman Peters: When the causeway was first being talked about, Dr. Mazur, the engineer at the time, said, that's fine, but, Parks Canada, you are going to have to maintain the western end of the island, so it doesn't erode. That never took place, and it did erode.

Speaking of the study that was done, I attended a study up here in the National Resource Council Building. They found out where the eastern breakwater would best serve. It was a big building full of water, and we stood in the water, they had computers, and they made waves, and they kept moving it around until they found where that eastern breakwater should be. They succeeded in that, but that's where that ended too. It never went any further. It was an extensive report. We have the report, and we have pictures of when we were up here doing the big study on how to put in the effective eastern breakwater that would solve the problem, but that was never done either, so we're still here.

The Chair: Mr. Morriscey, and then I'll come back to Mr. Roy.

Mr. Jim Morriscey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With the report Norman is talking about, the Baird report in 1989, the eastern breakwater was one of the things that was discussed, and as Norman described, there was a physical model. But another of the recommendations within that report was that we stop trying to maintain the traditional channel and let the systems stabilize. The model correctly predicted that there would be a channel close to the north shore and the western breakwater in the 1.5-meter range.

As well, the model study suggested that an effort be made to stabilize what we described as the dune bar system, which would accentuate the conditions in the channel and make the entrance channel a little more acceptable when it reached its natural alignment. The dune bar is just to the east of the breakwater in this photo here. And the model also predicted that if that system were nurtured, the two systems would become more divorced and become closer to two independent systems, as opposed to there being an interchange between them.

À (1015)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Morriscey.

Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Mr. Lipton, you haven't really answered my earlier question. I wanted to know if Parks Canada agrees with the conclusions of the 1998 study and if it's ready to participate. I'm not asking you to decide today what that participation would be because I fully understand that the decision is not yours to take, but does Parks Canada agree with all the conclusions of the study that has been done?

You've said earlier that, if something has been done, according to the conclusions of that study, it could be harmful to a species of plovers, among others.

Here is my question again: does Parks Canada agree with all the conclusions of that study?

[English]

Mr. David Lipton: Parks Canada, as a participant on the committee, did accept the findings and the recommendations of the study. From that point of view, in our response to Mr. Easter, the minister indicated that the Government of Canada's priority is to ensure that the investments required to maintain safe harbour access are made, and the natural processes associated with the causeway are complex. It's imperative that no further action be taken that could jeopardize the ecological integrity of Rustico Island and the bay, given that there was not going to be participation from Fisheries and Oceans.

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or--Cape Breton, Lib.): Is there currently a dredging program that the DFO and Small Craft Harbours are involved in with the access to the channel?

Mr. Jim Morriscey: We haven't conducted any dredging, as a result of the report that was prepared by Baird and Associates, which encouraged the stopping of dredging and letting the channel find its normal approach. There is a particularly narrow location near the breakwater, where there's a little point made on the eastern side of the western breakwater, which is where the channel is now. As for minor land-based dredging, I'm not totally sure if we've done that or not, but it would be minimal dredging, in the $2,000 to $5,000 range, a very minor project. I'm not sure whether that's been conducted or not.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: So there's been nothing major.

Mr. Jim Morriscey: If I may elaborate a bit on that, when we were in the process of dredging the entrance channel with a floating plant dredge, we tried to maintain a more or less straight channel from--

The Chair: For Roger's benefit, this channel goes out, and then it goes this way and goes that way. It's almost like a double L.

Mr. Jim Morriscey: Prior to the late 1980s, when we tried to maintain the historical channel, which was a straight entrance channel, we were moving probably in the order of 40,000 to 50,000 cubic metres per year, and it was an annual dredging project.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: How long ago would that have been?

Mr. Jim Morriscey: That was from 1970, roughly, until the late 1980s. The Baird report suggested we stop the dredging operation and let the channel find a natural alignment.

À (1020)

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner, does that answer your question?

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: When the dredging program was being undertaken, was that at least some appeasement for some of the safety concerns?

Mr. Norman Peters: There are problems with permits and that movement of sand, but it did keep the thing open for a few months. But where the sand went, it just came back. Do you know what I mean? It was just put over there, and then it came back.

I guess it wasn't feasible, but we often thought, why not put the darn sand up on the beach, where it's been eroding for years, and built that back up? It would be a more logical thing to do, but I guess permits wouldn't allow it or something, I don't know.

Mr. James Gallant: Of the words that were used, normal is one--“bring back to normal”. What year was it normal? What year were you talking about, Jim?

Mr. Jim Morriscey: Normal in what way?

Mr. James Gallant: You just mentioned a while ago bringing the channel back to its normal depth.

Mr. Jim Morriscey: Perhaps historical would have been a better word.

Mr. James Gallant: Okay, how deep was that?

Mr. Jim Morriscey: You, of course, have much better knowledge than I do in that.

Mr. James Gallant: Yes, right on. It was up to fifteen feet.

Okay, the other--

The Chair: It's outlined in Mr. Morriscey's presentation on pages 4 and 5, the hydraulic study, and the channel is basically operated as that study said it would be. I think that's what you're indicating.

Mr Peters.

Mr. Norman Peters: Mr. Morriscey said there's a little bit of sand built up at the breakwater. It's more than a little bit of sand. I was out there on this haul, and it's a lot of sand. As I say, it'll probably never close up what little entrance we have, but it's getting narrower every year and shallower. When they did the breakwater, I was kind of in charge of helping with the big aggregate. Wayne Easter and company got the breakwater done a couple of years ago with all this big aggregate from New Brunswick.

The Chair: From Newfoundland.

Mr. Norman Peters: Before that they worked on the breakwater, and some of the sandstone would come off into the channel, and that's what we're sailing over now, all the cobble sandstone coming into the channel. So we are into a situation where, if it fills up much more, we'll not get out. You can't compare it to other harbours.

The Chair: I don't want to get off the track here, because we want to get back to the study.

Norman, in fairness to DFO, there hasn't been a problem with them doing the dredging when required, as I understand it.

Mr. Norman Peters: Dredge number 12 left the harbour in 1988, and never came back. We've never seen dredging since then.

The Chair: Mr. Gallant, and then I'm coming to Mr. Morriscey.

Mr. James Gallant: Do you know why? Nobody could come into that harbour after dark if they did not have five years experience coming in and out of it after dark. There are no ranges you can follow--am I right, Jim?

The Chair: When Mr. Morriscey is answering the other thing he was going to answer, he can answer that one. Go ahead Jim.

Mr. Jim Morriscey: As I said, local knowledge and a high skill level would be required.

Mr. James Gallant: Yes, okay.

The other thing--

The Chair: Before you go on, James, Mr. Morriscey wanted to answer an earlier question--or was that it?

Mr. Jim Morriscey: No, that wasn't exactly it.

The Chair: Okay.

James.

Mr. James Gallant: Do you know why the harbour is like that, why the channel is like that, like an s? It's because the sand coming up from Wheatley River is pushing it in, and they've been digging it out and putting it back; for years they tried it on that side. Now, because the channel is going to follow that brushwork--you know where the brushwork is, about 250 feet long--it's hauling the sand away, and the stone that was inside the crib work is going down. Previously, the channel went straight out, and there was a lovely beach there.

The other question I wanted to ask Dave Lipton is, who owns that sandbar? Is it Parks Canada or is it P.E.I.? Why isn't the Department of the Environment involved? That used to be perfect oyster ground. It makes me so mad. Forty years, and people up here can't see what's going on down there, they don't want to see the poor bunch of peasants.

À (1025)

The Chair: Mr. Lipton, the question was, who owns what used to be Rustico Island, Robinson's Island, and now is sand?

Mr. David Lipton: The bar you see on the screen that's attached to the mainland is not within the national park boundary.

The Chair: Robinson's Island was a part of the national park, and now three kilometres came off from that end. Is that still the national park boundary or not?

Mr. David Lipton: What you see on the screen right now is the national park boundary established in 1935. The storm events that took place and caused that to wash into the bay in the mid-1970s ended up leaving what you see today, this bar in this bay developing and continuing to evolve with two channels, as Mr. Morriscey's reference clearly indicated there, on the North Rustico entrance and the bay entrance to the Wheatley estuary.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, you wanted in.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much.

I'd like to apologize to the presenters. When you're from a smaller party and you have two committees at the same time, you have to juggle the books, as they say.

The government always likes to talk about investments--we're investing in companies, we're investing in this--and one thing they tend to forget is that investments in small craft harbours in coastal communities, wharves, dredging, docks, etc., are investments in those communities, especially people who require those things for their daily livelihood. So I'd like to ask a question of Mr. Peters and Mr. Gallant. Has there been a cost analysis done? How much, for example, does the harbour give to the economic viability? How much does the fishing community and all that give to the area of Rustico? If that was not done, if the government just completely ignored it and didn't carry on, how much would be lost in economic value? And what would it cost to have the dredging done, in order for you to maintain your livelihoods?

Mr. Norman Peters: We can only speculate on what we've lost over the years through deterioration. Right now the income is $5 million plus a year coming into Rustico out of the fishery and the spinoffs, jobs and all that. Of course, you know about the collapse of the cod fishery in 1992-1993, but there is what we call a sentinel fishery every year to determine the scientific status of the cod.

Some awfully big figures have been batted around by certain people on what it would cost to get an eastern breakwater, to do a bit of dredging, and to open Little Harbour. We reversed the proposal to make it easier on all the people involved. We said get an eastern breakwater first, get that stabilized, do some dredging. I see some figures. We were told $28 million, and then it was down to $8 million. James has a rough ball park figure.

Mr. James Gallant: It's put out by Parks Canada, and we can tell them how to cut that in half. We know Sheila Copps got the brief. This is the only letter we know Sheila Copps wrote.

Removal of Gulf Shore Parkway roadbed, $1.7 million; excavation and dredging of new channels, $661,000; removal of camp grounds infrastructure, $871,000: subtotal, $3,275,000. Dredging of sandbar restoration on Rustico Island, $3 million; construction of eastern breakwater, $2 million; subtotal project, $8,275,000.

We would see that the first items would be done, because we're starving for good bedding for roads and buildings. The removal of the parkway, that's the pavement I'm talking about. We could cut that in half.

À (1030)

The Chair: These costs, though, where do they come from? Are these engineering costs?

Mr. James Gallant: Yes. All the names are there.

The Chair: Okay. Do we have this information in our package, Mr. Lipton, or Mr. Morriscey?

Mr. Jim Morriscey: The estimates for the costs for the breakwater at that point were in the range of $5.19 million to a maximum of $7.12 million, depending on the construction type that was undertaken. I'd like to remind the committee that these numbers are 12 years old now. This was prepared in 1989. They didn't cover things like engineering costs. Probably a much more elaborate environmental assessment would be required now, as opposed to in the late 1980s. So I think it would be reasonable to expect that the actual numbers could be as much as one and a half times these ones.

Mr. James Gallant: The date here is April 30, 1997.

The Chair: Jim, you're talking about the construction of the eastern breakwater, and it would be in the range of $5 million to $7 million?

Mr. Jim Morriscey: Yes, in 1989 dollars.

The Chair: All right. I just wanted to be clear on that.

Mr. Lipton.

Mr. David Lipton: To go to those numbers that were being quoted, $8.4 million was a preliminary estimate made in 1997, prior to the establishment of the working group, by André d'Entremont, who was a scientist at the time with us, an environmental researcher and engineer familiar with the marine environments. He worked with the park to establish those figures, because decommissioning of the assets on the island would be essential prior to removal of the causeway. That's why those figures were prepared locally. Following the scientific studies, those were modified, based on the North Queens Wildlife Federation proposal, by Public Works and the other associates, because the cost for bringing the dredging into the bay itself, where you see that sandbar on the screen, to restore the original 1935 sand spit, were much higher than expected.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I apologize if this question has already been asked. Mr. Lipton, Mr. Morriscey, and Ms. Leduc, what do you offer, then, as advice to the fishing community of that area? If they feel they need to have dredging in the breakwater in order to maintain their livelihoods, and we're talking about cost, what's the alternative for them? Is it to shut it down and move them to another harbour, or what?

The Chair: I think that was raised earlier in the presentation from Fisheries, and even the letter from the Minister of Fisheries. He indicated that from their point of view, there is safe passage here. But this is the broader question of the process to remove Little Harbour Causeway, which is at the other end of that island.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: But what's the alternative? What's the clear alternative you're suggesting as to what they should do?

We hear this, you hear it in Cape Breton, you hear it in Newfoundland, I hear it all over. Baker's Point is looking for dredging. They've been looking for it for years in Jeddore. They keep getting the runaround. Yet we continually hear from the government, we're here to invest. We'll spend $1.6 billion on investments, but when it comes to ordinary little fishing communities that are looking for help in infrastructure to maintain their livelihoods, they have the largest struggle just to get by.

So the simple question is, what's your alternative for these people? What are they supposed to do?

À (1035)

The Chair: Who wants to take it on? Madame Leduc, do you want to add something here?

Ms. Micheline Leduc: Not really, not at this point.

The Chair: Mr. Morriscey.

Mr. Jim Morriscey: I understand your comments. The access to harbours in a place like P.E.I. along the north shore is a sandbar, and to dredge those locations is an ongoing requirement. As an example, we have had locations where, in one fairly short storm event, a major channel could be closed off within a bay, where there's a harbour inside the bay, and the access to those fishermen could be as far away as very nearly a kilometre. The site I'm talking about is Malpeque, for the record. There was an access within 300 to 400 feet of the harbour on Thursday, and the following Monday they had to go behind a barrier island and out through another access about a kilometre to the east.

The whole north shore is very volatile in respect of sediment transport, and it's a major task to keep those places open to the point where they have 24-hour, 7-day, high and low tide storm condition access. It's common for breakwaters where we have restraining walls, as an example, two parallel structures. In storm conditions, in two or three days it's not uncommon to have to move 5,000 to 7,000 cubic metres by the use of land-based equipment on very short notice to provide access to the clients. There are occasions when the clients are inconvenienced, and it's difficult to maintain that. Part of the fishing industry in P.E.I. is that days are missed due to inclement weather or narrow entrance channels where only one vessel can travel the channel at a time, instead of having entrance channels where two vessels can meet in a very confined area.

I don't know if that answers your question, but maybe it gives you some idea of what the north shore is like in regard to the amount of material that's moving.

The Chair: Last question.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I appreciate your comments. You can see by that comment that fishermen and their families and their communities require the harbours, as we do a road, to get to work. It's very expensive to plough the roads in the wintertime through storms, to salt them, get them ready, so people can get to work, get to school, or whatever we do. And you know this. For the fishermen and their communities that harbour is the road. They pay taxes, and they have just as much right to gain their livelihood as I do to get to work on land. That's their frustration.

The Chair: Peter, Mr. Morriscey has to deal--

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm ranting, I know.

The Chair: --with the money that's allocated from the centre to deal with small craft harbours. Your question is more appropriately addressed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm just ranting, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I've got three or four questions. I want to get back to the study.

James, I'll let you in for a minute. Go ahead.

Mr. James Gallant: Maybe two.

Did you ever dredge Rustico Harbour before 1956? Not that I know of. I'm a few years older than you, and it never had to be dredged before the causeway. We never put any blame on Fisheries. It's costing Fisheries money because of that causeway every year. And what's wrong with the federal Department of the Environment? There are no oysters down there. That's a channel that sandbar is blocking, the inside channel that kept the island there. The island was in equilibrium, and you know what that means. There was no reason for that end of the island to move, because there was enough force inside to keep it out, until they put in that causeway. One of our fishermen asked the guy from Parks Canada who was serving there in 1963. His answer was that they had constructed a scale model of Rustico Harbour,with simulations of land, water, causeway, sand, tide, etc., at the National Research Council in Ottawa. He said this was the pet project of the chief engineer at the council, and everything had to be worked out and tested. To remove the causeway would be admitting he had made a mistake in calculations.

À (1040)

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. James Gallant: I can tell lies, but that's not a lie.

The Chair: We don't want any lies at this committee, James.

I want to come back to two questions. One I asked earlier of Mr. Lipton, and I really didn't follow the answer. Who currently owns or has title to the property that was once Rustico Island on the west end and washed away? Who really owns that property?

Mr. David Lipton: I'll attempt another clarification I guess. This is the original boundary we had in 1935 that was surveyed and put through Parliament to establish the national park on Prince Edward Island. So the sand spit up to the harbour, the western end, that area belongs to Parks Canada. The subsequent deterioration reduced the land base within the surveyed property, so our land operations were continuing to be reduced to what they are today, which is the piece to the east. It does not include operational responsibility for the piece that's become attached to the mainland. That sand spit itself has evolved from sand deposition in the Wheatley and Hunter River estuaries, and it's growing there, and it's becoming quite stable as well. But it's not within the boundaries of the national park, nor do we have operational responsibility for it, though we do provide advice and assistance from time to time for people who are concerned about plovers that are nesting in that area.

The Chair: Okay.

Coming back to the last study that was done, which agreed phase one would involve the construction of the eastern breakwater, I don't even know if you can give an opinion, but is that study still valid? Given that we're now five or six years down the road, is the study still valid? If the Government of Canada were to proceed with an eastern breakwater, would they have to do new studies, new modelling, etc., of Rustico Island or not? What are your thoughts on that? I know it's not a scientific answer I'm asking for. We, as a committee, in making a recommendation for funding, for further studies, or whatever, need to know what parameters we're looking at.

Mr. Jim Morriscey: Mr. Chairman, certainly, in the 12 years since the Baird study of 1989-90, which had the model of the eastern breakwater as part of the overall model study, there have been significant changes in the symmetry of both estuaries. My personal opinion is that it would be very necessary to conduct, at the very least, a computer model study before proceeding with any major construction of this nature.

À (1045)

The Chair: And then you would have to do the environmental assessments as well.

Mr. Jim Morriscey: Absolutely, yes.

The Chair: Mr. Lipton.

Mr. David Lipton: One response I would have to that is that the original study was of the proposal by the North Queens Wildlife Federation to re-establish local conditions as they were prior to the causeway. As the sand deposition continues to occur, the modelling for the breakwater may very well have changed as a result. We're not sure, we would need a study to do that. As to the original recommendations, though, I think we're not looking at their being changed, we're looking at the re-establishment. The cost could change as well. Costs have already increased since the estimates were given to us in 1998, and Parks Canada did agree that there would have to be additional studies by Dr. Brylinsky of Acadia University. In 1998 costs were in the order of $170,000 to deal with the the removal of the causeway, when it came time to remove the causeway, so we could assure the mussel fishers that their livelihood would not be affected negatively as a result of that. That had to do with what I mentioned earlier, the change in spat growth in the bay.

So there are studies yet to do before we remove the causeway, but the issue for us would be the need to go back and ensure that we were still stable in respect of what our original proposals were scientifically.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

If there are no members with further questions, I'm going to turn to the witnesses to see if there are any final comments.

Mr. Gallant.

Mr. James Gallant: It's been studied more than any other harbour in the world, I don't care what anybody says. And now you're talking about another study. We just had one, it cost the harbour half a million dollars. Why didn't you listen to the first study that was made in1952? That's where your mistake is. People in North Rustico just don't understand how people up here can let this go. Look at the environment, the water quality it's harming, the fishery it's harming. We can guarantee you taxes in ten years, after we get 10 or 12 feet of water in that bar; we'll have a state-of-the-art crab processing plant, plus mussels, plus any other fish that's available. What more do you want?

The Chair: We'll not get into crab. We're having some other discussions on crab, which are fairly serious at the moment.

Mr. James Gallant: How do they know? We're not doing it.

The Chair: James, we need to know the parameters we're working in. There's no sense in our making a recommendation for immediately putting in an eastern breakwater and spending whatever the money is if there are a whole lot of other add-ons we've got to deal with. I'm not saying we won't recommend it at the end of the day, but we certainly need to know the risks and opportunities here. I'm not ruling out anything, as a chair, that's for the committee to decide.

Mr. Peters.

Mr. Norman Peters: There have been so many studies, and they seem to die on the table. That's the sad part, I suppose. When the causeway was built in 1956, the old fishermen were there. I remember my uncle saying they shouldn't be doing that, but I guess at the time it was a project for tourism, to connect all that so tourists could travel right through and not have to go around to get to Rustico Island, the campground. Then came the studies in 1979 and 1989--it seems that every ten years there's a study. In 1998 there was a half a million dollar study with the best equipment in the world under Dr. Carl Amos. Actually, he took his equipment to Venice, Italy, to study the canal system over there. So it was quite an elaborate study he had. After that study, here we are again--another study probably.

À (1050)

The Chair: Where are we going from here? That's what's crucial. I don't care what happened in the past, to be honest. It may be important and it may be relevant, and it may be not, but the key point is where we go from here.

Madame Leduc.

Ms. Micheline Leduc: I would make one last comment to reiterate the position of DFO. Since the construction of the causeway, it has definitely worsened the environment there, and everybody has been victimized by that situation. DFO for about ten years spent money to dredge that channel, that linear alignment that used to be there, until the Baird report concluded that we were wasting our money, that it would be better to let the natural channel occur. So we spent money there. Jim whispered in my ear earlier that we didn't spend $850,000 there to fix the western breakwater, but $1.1 million in the past four or five years. We do intend to continue with the responsibility to keep that breakwater in good repair. Whatever land-based dredging is required at the head of that breakwater comes under our responsibility, and we're prepared to assume that. The rest, we believe, doesn't fall under our responsibility.

The Chair: All right.

We'll meet on this as a committee when further information comes forward. We'd like to have any correspondence between the ministers and the departments on this issue, as was requested earlier. I do have copies of the studies here, so we don't need those, but we'd appreciate any correspondence recording an exchange between the various ministers and where they stand on it. Then we'll have to meet and consider it.

I'd remind committee members that there is a summary of the recommendations on aquaculture. If you have any comments on those, we'd appreciate getting them back fairly quickly, because we want Alan to start drafting the final version of that report.

I think the committee members also know that it went through the House yesterday on our travel to the east coast on the matter of marine traffic control and the 200-mile limit in St. John's, Newfoundland. So if you have witnesses you want us to consider, let us know.

Mr. Roy, could you talk to Madame Tremblay. We will be in Rimouski, and she wanted to attend that hearing. She may have witnesses there for us to hear from.

With that, thank you, Mr. Lipton, Mr. Morriscey, Madame Leduc, Mr. Peters, and Mr. Gallant. We will review the minutes, we'll get the correspondence, and then we'll have to deal with it as a committee. Thank you, once again.

The meeting is adjourned.