;

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, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 8, 2003

0810

The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.))

Mr. Arthur Bull (Coordinator, Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association)

0815

The Chair

Ms. Patricia Rhynold (Manager, Guysborough County Inshore Fishermen's Association)

The Chair

Ms. Patricia Rhynold

0820

0825

The Chair

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

Mr. Arthur Bull

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Patricia Rhynold

Mr. Peter Stoffer

0830

Mr. Arthur Bull

Ms. Patricia Rhynold

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Arthur Bull

0835

Mr. Reed Elley

Mr. Arthur Bull

Mr. Reed Elley

Mr. Arthur Bull

Mr. Reed Elley

Ms. Patricia Rhynold

The Chair

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

0840

Ms. Patricia Rhynold

Mr. Arthur Bull

0845

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.)

Ms. Patricia Rhynold

Mr. Bob Wood

Ms. Patricia Rhynold

Mr. Bob Wood

Ms. Patricia Rhynold

Mr. Bob Wood

Ms. Patricia Rhynold

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Arthur Bull

0850

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Arthur Bull

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Arthur Bull

Mr. Bob Wood

The Chair

0855

Mr. Arthur Bull

The Chair

Mr. Arthur Bull

The Chair

0900

Mr. Arthur Bull

The Chair

Mr. Scott Milsom (Communications Officer, Coastal Communities Network)

0905

The Chair

Mr. Scott Milsom

The Chair

Mr. Scott Milsom

The Chair

Mr. Scott Milsom

The Chair

0910

Mr. Scott Milsom

The Chair

Mr. Ashton Spinney (Chair, Lobster Advisory Committee, Lobster Fishing Area 34)

0915

0920

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley

0925

Mr. Scott Milsom

The Chair

Mr. Scott Milsom

Mr. Ashton Spinney

Mr. Reed Elley

Mr. Ashton Spinney

0930

The Chair

Mr. Ashton Spinney

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Scott Milsom

0935

Mr. Ashton Spinney

0940

The Chair

Mr. Scott Milsom

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Ashton Spinney

Mr. Peter Stoffer

0945

The Chair

Mr. Ashton Spinney

0950

The Chair

Mr. Scott Milsom

The Chair

Mr. Scott Milsom

The Chair

Mr. Mark Dittrick (Conservation Chair, Atlantic Canada Chapter, Sierra Club of Canada)

0955

1000

The Chair

1005

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Mark Dittrick

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Mark Dittrick

The Chair

Mr. Mark Dittrick

The Chair

Mr. Mark Dittrick

1010

The Chair

1015

The Chair

1020

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie

1025

The Chair

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie

1030

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie

Mr. Reed Elley

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie

Mr. Reed Elley

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie

Mr. Reed Elley

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie

Mr. Reed Elley

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie

Mr. Reed Elley

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie

Mr. Reed Elley

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie

Mr. Reed Elley

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie

Mr. Reed Elley

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

1035

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie

M. Jean-Yves Roy

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie

The Chair

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie

The Chair

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie

The Chair

1040

Mrs. Carol Mahtab (Secretary, Partnership for Sustainable Development of Digby Neck and Islands Society)

Mr. Ashraf Mahtab (Chair, Legal Committee, Partnership for Sustainable Development of Digby Neck and Islands Society)

1045

The Chair

Mr. Mark Dittrick

Mr. Ashraf Mahtab

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Ashraf Mahtab

The Chair

Mr. Ashraf Mahtab

The Chair

Mr. Ashraf Mahtab

1050

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mrs. Carol Mahtab

The Chair

Mr. Mark Dittrick

1055

The Chair

Mr. Ashraf Mahtab

The Chair

Mr. Mark Dittrick

The Chair

Mr. Mark Dittrick

The Chair

Mrs. Carol Mahtab

The Chair

Mrs. Carol Mahtab

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley

Mrs. Carol Mahtab

Mr. Reed Elley

Mrs. Carol Mahtab

Mr. Reed Elley

1100

Mrs. Carol Mahtab

Mr. Reed Elley

The Chair

Mr. Mark Dittrick

Mr. Reed Elley

Mr. Ashraf Mahtab

Mr. Reed Elley

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Stoffer)

Mr. Bob Wood

1105

Mr. Ashraf Mahtab

Mrs. Carol Mahtab

Mr. Bob Wood

The Chair

M. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Ashraf Mahtab

The Chair

Mrs. Carol Mahtab

Mr. Ashraf Mahtab

The Chair

Mr. John MacDonell (Fisheries Critic, New Democratic Party, Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia)

1115

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley

1120

Mr. John MacDonell

Mr. Reed Elley

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. John MacDonell

1125

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. John MacDonell

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. John MacDonell

M. Jean-Yves Roy

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. John MacDonell

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. John MacDonell

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. John MacDonell

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. John MacDonell

1130

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. John MacDonell

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

NUMBER 036

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 8, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾ (0810)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.)): Good morning. I'd like to call the meeting to order. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are conducting a study on Atlantic fisheries issues. We'd like to get started. We have a full day, we have a full agenda, and as I've done each day, I'll give you a few eclectic unnecessary facts.

Notwithstanding what the Globe and Mail said yesterday, my source indicates that it was today in 1915 that a U-boat sank the Lusitania with a loss of 1,200 lives. Today in 1429, Joan of Arc recaptured Orléans. Sadly, in 1902 today, a volcano exploded—or erupted is the correct word—on the island of Martinique, and 30,000 people were killed and two survived. Finally, Harry Truman, president of the U.S. at one time, was born today. So there you go. That's what happened today.

Welcome to our first witnesses. They are from the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association, Arthur Bull, coordinator; and from the Guysborough County Inshore Fishermen's Association, Patricia Rhynold, manager.

Welcome. It's pretty simple. We would ask you to give your presentations. We'd ask that you keep them generally in the ten-minute range, and that way we can have questions. We do have other members who will be coming in and then we'll have a question and answer session.

Who'd like to go first? Mr. Bull? Please, go ahead.

Mr. Arthur Bull (Coordinator, Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank the honourable members for coming to Halifax and being here and also for giving us the opportunity to come and speak on this issue.

I'm speaking today on behalf of the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association regarding the proposed changes to licensing policies that are being put forward by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as part of the Atlantic fisheries policy review. In particular, the membership of the BFIFA are very concerned about the changes to the owner-operator and fleet separation provisions in the DFO licensing policy.

The Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association represents multi-species inshore fishermen in five counties of the Bay of Fundy region of Nova Scotia. Currently we have about 160 members, most of whom are lobster and hook and line groundfish fishermen, with some sea urchin and small-scale herring fishermen. We are a small organization but we feel we have an important role in the fisheries in coastal communities in our region.

We believe that the proposed changes to licensing policy will gravely undermine what remains of the owner-operator fleets in Nova Scotia and throughout Atlantic Canada. We would remind you that this includes the southwest Nova Scotia lobster fishery, one of the most successful and sustainable independent small business fisheries in the world.

Specifically, the document entitled The Management of Fisheries on Canada's Atlantic Coast: A Discussion Document on Policy Direction and Principles makes it clear that the AFPR is being used to seriously undermine the owner-operator and fleet separation provisions of the current licensing policy.

The mechanisms for allowing fleets to opt out of owner-operator, which are outlined on page 25 of that document, seem designed to meet the needs of the processing sector, which in Scotia-Fundy has already been allowed to control massive portions of existing fleets in contravention of the owner-operator policy. Furthermore, the absence of any mention of fleet separation policy in this document further indicates that the new policy will seriously undermine independent owner-operator fleets.

Our organization is completely opposed to any attempt to water down the owner-operator and fleet separation policies. These policies are critical for the economic well-being of our communities and they urgently need to be strengthened, not weakened.

It is a matter of public record that in every region of the Atlantic, the AFPR public consultations heard an overwhelming concern from the industry participants about the need to strengthen owner-operator and fleet separation policies. This is a major policy shift. The previous licensing policy began with the sentence: “This is a fleet separation policy”. The new version does not mention fleet separation policy anywhere. What we have here is policy change by stealth. Surely the citizens of Atlantic Canada deserve better than this. In Scotia-Fundy, where loopholes in the existing licensing policy have allowed processors to take control of whole fleets, this issue is of pressing concern to fishermen, their organizations, and their communities.

We believe that immediate action is needed to turn this trend around. Specifically, we recommend that DFO take two immediate steps.

First, begin enforcing immediately the owner-operator and fleet separation policies, especially in cases where trust agreements are being used to circumvent them. Recent actions by DFO gulf region show that it is possible for the department to vigorously enforce these policies with very positive results.

¾ (0815)

Second, close the existing loopholes in the licensing policy by making the owner-operator and fleet separation policies part of the regulations of the Fisheries Act and therefore give them the force of law. Lawyers and accountants familiar with the problem of trust agreements tell us that this would immediately solve the problem.

We appeal to you, as the parliamentarians who are entrusted with looking out for the future of Canadian fisheries, to intervene on our behalf to ask the minister to reconsider these changes. Specifically, we respectfully request that the minister delay bringing the Atlantic fisheries policy review to cabinet until there is an opportunity to have a full and public debate on these changes.

Mr. Chairman, that's the end of my written presentation. I would like to add in light of the current crises that are happening in Atlantic fisheries, which I know you are very aware of, in one case a crisis that has to do with allocation, another case a crisis that has to do with scarcity of the resource, that in this case we have a very healthy fishery in our part of Nova Scotia. It's an independent fishery. It's not a subsidized fishery. It's one of the healthiest fisheries in Canada. It's a small business fishery and it's the absolute cornerstone of the economy in southwest Nova Scotia.

So in this case we have a federal government making a policy change that undermines small business in Nova Scotia, in fact introducing a crisis into a healthy, sustainable, and viable fishery. So we seriously ask you to intervene on our behalf on this policy issue.

I'll thank you again for giving me the opportunity to speak today on behalf of fishermen in our area.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bull. I want to thank you for three things: first, for having a written submission; second, for actually making some recommendations; and third, for keeping it under 10 minutes. It's very much appreciated.

That's no pressure on you, madam.

Ms. Patricia Rhynold (Manager, Guysborough County Inshore Fishermen's Association): Mr. Chairman and members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, my name is Pat Rhynold and I'm representing the Guysborough County Inshore Fishermen's Association. I am here today instead of a fisherman as this is lobster fishing season in eastern and northern Nova Scotia and all the fishermen are on the water.

When our group reviewed the topics available for comment at these hearings today, it was difficult to choose which issue to concentrate our submission on. Therefore, they have asked me to comment on a few of the subjects listed, and I hope I will be allowed to do that.

The Chair: Go right ahead.

Ms. Patricia Rhynold: The department's owner-operator status policy, fleet separation, has been the focus of attention within our membership recently. Many of our fishermen express concerns that the policy as it exists may leave the door open, does leave the door open, for large companies and processors to acquire access to what has been a traditional under-65-foot fishery, and that they may even be granted permission to hold licences for these traditionally inshore small boat fisheries.

Should this continue to happen, it would make it easier for them to control the price paid to the fisherman. Our membership is aware that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is attempting to adapt its approaches to a new and diversified fishery. In many cases, the fishing of certain species is no longer restricted to the traditional grounds where they were once executed.

We understand that the department is attempting to balance the needs of all stakeholders in the use of our oceans and resources. However, strong owner-operator policy is vital to the sustainability of small-boat fish harvesters. The coastal communities of Nova Scotia, and indeed all Atlantic Canada, depend on the small boat fishery. The concentration of licences and quota in the hands of a few in these ports could be disastrous. Allowing for other approaches to foster independence and economic viability of these fisheries is crucial.

Now I'll move on to seal management. The issue of seal management is also a popular item for discussion on our wharves and at our meetings. The fishermen are adamant that something has to be done about the large number of grey seals in our harbours. The fishermen have been forced to abandon the mackerel fishery in many areas due to the increased cost of replacing gear damaged by seals.

Fishermen used to rely on the mackerel fishery in the fall to supplement their income from the spring lobster fishery. And mackerel is also a bait fishery for lobster fishing and tuna fishing. The intervention by these seals has caused a domino effect in the fishing communities, affecting the income of our fishermen and the potential viability to engage in other fisheries.

The subject of the quality of DFO's science and research is also of interest to our association. We are a very proactive group, and we have been partnering with universities and the department on a number of research projects. One thing that has become evident to the fishermen is that if they are to continue to adapt the conservation measures required by the department, defensible research on the results of these measures has to be carried out.

An example would be the collection of sea and port samples in the lobster fishery. This function was traditionally done by DFO technicians, and other individuals were often hired to assist. In recent years our membership have been seeking funding for lobster research, and the interns and technicians we hire have been assisting the DFO department in doing the port and sea samples, in some instances completely conducting the sampling.

We do not limit our research to simply this sampling, yet after five years of lobster research, we see the need for funding to carry out the work required. Not only the costs, but the responsibility for the science is being downloaded onto the fishermen. As interested as they are, they cannot afford to continue. But they realize the viability of their fishery relies on the research.

Another item that goes along with this is the concern of the fishermen about the lack of funding for enforcement on the water. The fishermen are following the conservation rules and doing everything in their power to maintain their fishery. However, without enforcement of the regulations, poaching and illegal fishing can destroy their work and efforts.

Lastly, the concept of economic and social viability has been one of the main focuses of the social science research carried out by our association. We have been fortunate to participate in a number of community and university research alliance initiatives funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

The information amassed by our research coordinator and her staff has made it all too evident to our group that the traditional way of life of our fishermen is all but gone. The very values and traditions that bind our communities and make us who we are, are disappearing. The community spirit is being replaced by survival of the fittest. Fishermen are being pitted against fishermen, communities against communities, all fighting to survive. The proud history of our coastal communities, towns, and villages is being threatened.

¾ (0820)

In summary, our comments are as follows.

The owner-operator fleet separation policy is of prime concern to the GCIFA membership. Concentration of licences and quotas in the hands of a few will be disastrous to our coastal communities.

An effective management plan for grey seals is needed if our fishery is to survive.

The department must fund the science and research necessary to ensure that the regulations and policies that fishermen are required to adhere to are effective in improving the survival of the fishery.

More resources are required for enforcement of fishing regulations.

The economic and social viability of our fishing community has to take precedence over the interest of any individual or company. Our communities and culture must be preserved.

I thank you very much for your time this morning.

¾ (0825)

The Chair: Thank you, ma'am. My same comments and compliments to you as to Mr. Bull.

With your permission, colleagues, since we're in Nova Scotia today, I'd like to start with a Nova Scotia member and have Mr. Stoffer begin the questioning.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank all my colleagues. Welcome to the great province of Nova Scotia.

Arthur, I have a couple of questions for you. The first question that comes to mind is why? In your opinion, when something has sustained these communities for so long, why are the fishermen and their families and their communities, either in perception or in reality, assuming that DFO wants to do away with their traditional way of life and concentrate what has been or should be a common property resource into the hands of a few? What are the fishermen telling you? Why do you think this is being done?

Mr. Arthur Bull: That question, as you know, goes to the roots of what is happening in the fishery and the overall direction of the federal government over the last 10 years and more. The concentration of the licences, the owning of licences, is really very closely connected to the owning of quotas, and the owning of quotas is connected to the overall federal policy of privatizing quotas; that is, privatizing the access to fisheries, which has gone through most of groundfish, almost all of scallop except for New Brunswick, through herring, and really through most of the fishery. This has been the driving, underlying policy trend.

So you have great accumulation of quota--that is, access to the fisheries—in a few hands. The policy that has been in place has said that fishermen should fish and be the licence holders--the owner-operators—and processors should be processors. But at the same time, that has been undermined by this policy of putting the fisheries in a few hands.

But that doesn't really answer your question, because we know that has been the policy trend. We know that has been happening. We know getting rid of the owner-operator policy is really just the last phase of that. It's just aligning the policy with what has actually been happening, because what is happening now is that the policy has been circumvented through trust agreements in fishery after fishery, and it is now happening in the lobster fishery in southwest Nova Scotia.

Why is that happening? I don't think this is a question of pointing fingers at those companies. That's their business plan. They're doing what they are designed to do, and many of us would do the same thing if we were running those companies. It makes good business sense.

A harder question to answer is why would the federal government undermine small businesses? That is a hard question to answer. I think that's the question the federal government should be asking itself. Why don't we value small business in the fishery? That's what's being destroyed. Honestly, for the life of me, I don't understand it. I don't have the answer to that question.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Pat, you mentioned the grey seals. We were just in Newfoundland and Labrador, where of course the issue of seals is of great concern.

We have asked what the fishermen are recommending we do with the grey seals. I notice you didn't say a cull or anything of that nature. What should the federal government do about the issue of grey seals when it comes to your specific area? What would you suggest?

Ms. Patricia Rhynold: I don't really have the answer to that question. I know that as an association we have looked at the exclusion zones that were being adopted in parts of Newfoundland. There has been talk of that. But I really don't have an answer for you. If the fishermen knew what would work, they would really be trying to do it, you know--other than decimating the seals, and that's not exactly their approach.

But I really don't have an answer for you.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: My last question is to either one of you.

We heard last year that there was an investigation regarding an illegal lobster fishery worth, I believe, a couple of hundred million dollars. When I was speaking to a few people down there, they were indicating that, well, because we have a lack of enforcement and really a lack of anybody concentrating on this specific issue, you are going to have this type of activity persist.

You mentioned, Pat, the lack of enforcement. Can you or Arthur give us a comparison of what enforcement was, say, 10 or 15 years ago as compared to what it is today? Is there a comparison you can make?

¾ (0830)

Mr. Arthur Bull: Well, except to say that it is a fraction today of what it was.

Also, the underlying point is that there is a common stereotype or misconception across Canada that Nova Scotia is subsidized, that inshore fishermen are subsidized. I have been told by DFO that a third of the landed value of all the fisheries in Canada is landed in southwest Nova Scotia, where we are. Think of the income taxes, the permits, the GST, the incredible amount of wealth going into the Canadian treasury from that incredibly successful fishery. Apparently about 3% to 5% of DFO's resources go back into that fishery.

So I guess the fishermen in our area would say, who is subsidizing whom here? That goes for enforcement, and it goes for science; it goes right across the board.

Ms. Patricia Rhynold: I have to agree with Arthur, and I don't want to give the impression that the enforcement officers aren't doing their jobs or that they are not cooperating with the fishermen, because that certainly isn't the case. What is required is more resources for conservation and protection. The staff that they have are excellent to deal with and they are there whenever we call them; it's just that the resources aren't there for them to do the job the way they would like to do it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chair, we hear that a lot, that the on-the-ground officials for DFO and the fishermen in our communities have a very good working relationship throughout the country, but somewhere after that, there seems to be a disconnect somehow, and it's always difficult to get a handle on it.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

We'll go now to Mr. Elley. Mr. Elley is a member of our committee and I'm sure he is just about to tell you he is from the beautiful province of British Columbia.

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks so much for coming and sharing with us this morning.

As Mr. Wappel has already said, I represent a maritime riding on the west coast, on Vancouver Island, so I talk to lots of fishermen, my constituents. It's just amazing how similar the stories are. It unites the country in a rather odd way.

A question I'd like to ask you is this. We had the Minister of Fisheries of Newfoundland appear before our committee yesterday morning. I was a little disconcerted in some ways to hear what she was saying, but at the same time, I kind of understand where she was coming from, and I'd like your comment on it.

She maintained that the Government of Newfoundland and the people of Newfoundland want to have more jurisdiction over the fishery. I'm wondering what your fishermen feel and what you yourself feel. Would this resource be better run if provinces had more jurisdiction over it?

Mr. Arthur Bull: I could take a run at that one and we could tag team it.

First of all, you're quite right about the linking from coast to coast, because in our area we have been quite involved in community-based management of the fisheries. We've talked to some of the folks on the west coast of Vancouver Island and developed quite good ties with them. We are quite impressed by the work there, particularly the native and non-native cooperation.

That's how I would answer this question. From where we sit, it's not a question of moving the control and responsibility and authority from one government level to another, but rather, moving it to the community, to community-based management.

In our area, for example, with the groundfishery, the inshore fishermen have been managing their fishery since 1996. That goes right from allocation and access to science and so forth, including compliance. So they actually have created their own mechanisms for self-regulation.

This kind of democratic self-governance works very well. This is a very small fishery, the groundfishery there, but still it has proven itself, and I think it has in some examples in B.C. as well.

To me, that's where the responsibility should be shifted, and I don't say so much the power but the responsibility, because it's the people whose children and grandchildren depend on the resource who will take the responsibility most seriously. So that's where the decision-making should be shifted, in my opinion--not so much to the province but to the actual communities, to help them build the capacity to take care of the resource.

¾ (0835)

Mr. Reed Elley: I think what we're trying to get at here is what Mr. Stoffer alluded to when he said it seems the problem exists with the disconnect that occurs somewhere between here and Ottawa. I guess what we're grappling with, those of us who come from maritime communities too, is whether there is any way to solve that problem so that the decisions are made in-province, in-region, and so that somewhere along the way, when decisions are made that you think are being made here, they don't get changed between here and Ottawa.

How do we fix that? Everybody tells us about this.

Mr. Arthur Bull: I guess I would say again that community-based management is the way to go. Bringing a lot of decision-making to that level is the way to get at that issue. As soon as community-based management is taken seriously by the federal government and supported, that question will be dealt with.

Mr. Reed Elley: What if that doesn't happen?

Mr. Arthur Bull: Well, there are no guarantees in this world, but it's not working as it is. The fisheries are in pretty serious trouble here under this current regime, and if there isn't some new kind of thinking, the last successful fisheries are going to go down here. I'm talking about very successful fisheries, and we can see them threatened today by the current management regime. The lobster fishery in southwest Nova Scotia is a non-quota fishery, but there's huge pressure to move to a quota and to move to the same kind of system that has destroyed one fishery after the other on both coasts.

So a new way of thinking has to be brought in, and that way is community-based management. We're absolutely convinced, and as I say, we've been doing it and it works to have fishermen step up to the plate and take that authority.

Mr. Reed Elley: Would you like to add anything to that, Pat?

Ms. Patricia Rhynold: I couldn't agree with Arthur more. We've used community-based management with our snow crab fishery in eastern Nova Scotia and it has been very successful. This year that is all going to be changed, because we think permanent access will be given. So the quotas will not be given to the communities; they'll be given to individuals now.

But when it was given to the communities.... During the last five years I managed snow crab for Guysborough County, and everybody shared, and it was very successful. The fishermen fished the allocation, and the communities benefited from it. Now if that is limited to the hands of a few, the people who benefit from it may not necessarily be from the community.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Roy, who is from the province of Quebec, is next. He is the fisheries critic for his party, the Bloc Québécois.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Thank you for being here this morning.

Your brief dealing with access to the fisheries for the community interests me greatly, because we also heard talk of this issue in Gaspé. What I have observed is that this has obviously worked with the lobster fishery. You have just said that you are doing the same thing in the crab fishery. I can tell you that this is the first time I am hearing this, because, as you will have noted with what is happening in the crab fishery file at present, there is a serious problem.

What the people from Gaspé were telling us is that the more the company earns money, the less it is willing to share its riches. Lobster fishers, among others, are telling us that the system is working for them. I wondered, following their appearance before the committee, how we would be able to apply that to the crab fishery as well as to others.

Let me give you an example. You are telling us that it should be the fisher, the one who is in the boat, who holds the licence, and that in this way we will be able to retain small fisheries with independent fishers. What I would like to tell you is that in my region, when the small independent fishers run into financial problems, they cannot turn to the banks because the banks will not finance them. They therefore turn to the processors. They in any case are held hostage by the processors. In the end, it is somewhat similar to slavery, because if the processor decides to set a price and if he is the one who is financing the fisher, then the fisher winds up in the end working for virtually nothing.

How then could we go about applying the same system to the crab fishery or to others? For groundfish, it is clear that we would have problems. But how could we apply this to other fisheries? That is what I am trying to get at.

¾ (0840)

[English]

Ms. Patricia Rhynold: The way we've done it with the snow crab fishery is that the allocation was made to the communities, and on behalf of the fishermen, I managed the snow crab. We did deal with the buyers and processors in a similar arrangement to what you are describing. The difference was that the quota was owned by the group; therefore, no one person had more influence than the other.

I can sympathize with you when you say that the more successful, the more profitable the enterprise, the less it seems to be shared. That's the concern we're facing right now with our snow crab fishery. I think if from the beginning the allocations had been made to individuals rather than to a group, we wouldn't have been able to experience this community-based management approach. The fishermen, as individuals, probably would have been only too happy to receive the allocation individually. The problem is that they are not allowed to fish it individually, they have to combine in groups; therefore, we were in a unique situation and we had the potential to try something different.

We also used community-based management in the ground fishery in our area, as Arthur referred to, but we're under moratorium right now, so we are not exploring that as much these days.

With other fisheries, I think the problem is--and Arthur has alluded to this--that it's the way the allocations are made. If the allocations are made to individuals and they're individual transferable quotas, then they can be sold to anyone. This is a personal opinion here--and I'd like to be quite clear about this--that when you have ITQs, it allows for the concentration of licences and power.

Mr. Arthur Bull: I would just add to that. It's a good question: how would you move ahead with community-based management? I think one reasonable way to go ahead is to try it; have some very limited and well-controlled fisheries that actually can work it through. Rather than turn the whole system on its head, I think it's more reasonable to say to DFO, listen, let's take some fisheries that are working well, where there are strong organizations--because the key is that fishermen are well organized. The federal government could well say, we have some criteria here and one of them is that you have democratic, accountable, transparent decision-making processes--strong organizations for making decisions.

There are fisheries that could very well do this. For example, as I said before, on Vancouver Island there are fisheries. There are some in Nova Scotia. I understand in the north there are some very interesting examples that you probably know about better than I do.

What we need is those examples and more, to actually be a kind of test bed for community-based management. That requires a different approach from the current one. It really requires that DFO let go of a certain amount of control. Keep the accountability, but they have to let go of that kind of authoritarian control over every single thing that happens.

Give some responsibility to the communities and to the fishermen in the communities and let them work it through. Let them make mistakes and learn from those mistakes. That's the best answer I can think of for now.

¾ (0845)

The Chair: Thank you.

Merci, monsieur Roy.

We'll now go to Mr. Wood, who is from the same province as me, the province of Ontario.

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know we're trying to keep on time today, and this might be a little difficult for us. I just have a couple of quick questions.

Ms. Rhynold, you were saying in your brief that responsibility for the science is being downloaded onto the fishermen, adding other kinds of pressure. What kinds of pressure are we talking about?

What is the percentage? Do you have any idea of how much money goes from the fishermen into research or anything like that?

Ms. Patricia Rhynold: I'm sorry, I don't have the exact figures, but I can--

Mr. Bob Wood: Just a ballpark figure is good--if you have one.

Ms. Patricia Rhynold: No, I don't.

I'm more familiar with the crab fishery. With the crab fishery, with temporary access we paid a higher science rate than the permanent fleet. It was based on the allocation. It was a percentage of the allocation. That's how it was funded.

What I was referring to more in the brief was that a lot of the research that has to be done in the communities and on the water that involves the fishermen—participatory research—is not research that is done to us but research that is done with us.

Mr. Bob Wood: And for you.

Ms. Patricia Rhynold: And for us.

Sometimes the priorities are not the same. The fishermen's priorities for research are not always the same as the department's. When we see something that we know has to be studied, we have to go out and source the funding to do the study. Even in the instances where the department realizes that studies have to be done--we've been partnering with them and helping individuals within the department to source money to carry out the necessary research, particularly in lobster. We've done a lot of lobster research--five years.

Mr. Bob Wood: The fishermen are probably more accurate too than DFO, but you don't want to comment on that. I'll do it, though, because I think it is true, because we certainly have heard in the last couple of days that when fishermen do their own research they are a lot more accurate than DFO.

Some of my other questions have been answered, but the other one I have is on the enforcement on the water. How serious is this, and how has it changed over the last five years or so?

Ms. Patricia Rhynold: With technology changes, the people who are out there breaking the law have cell phones and other electronic devices. They know if there are enforcement people on the water. Word spreads. That is one instance.

The presence in the communities isn't as strong because there's not as much staff.

Maybe I'll be philosophical, but part of it may even go to the whole change in perception of our communities, where at one time people respected others' rights more and they respected their livelihoods and the fact that these fishermen are on the water trying to make a living and there are other people out there who aren't involved in the fishery commercially who are sometimes benefiting from the fishery.

Mr. Bob Wood: Did you have anything to add?

Mr. Arthur Bull: I don't know the exact reduction in the amount of science that's done, but on enforcement, I would say that again with community-based management there's a certain amount that the fishermen can actually take on themselves. In our case we actually have civil contracts, where the fishermen have contracts with their own association. If somebody goes over a limit, there is a way to sanction that person in a fair way.

On the other hand, there are still some major responsibilities with the federal government. It's as if two columns should be developed in community-based management, or maybe three. One is DFO's responsibilities, the other is the fishermen's responsibilities, and I guess the middle column is shared responsibilities. In our case, we would say enforcement on the water is clearly a federal responsibility. Let's let DFO pick a few things and do them well, and not try to micro-manage everything in the fisheries. That would be one thing.

As for the overall science, I think it's important for the federal government to put more money into that and do it well. But as you say, the local knowledge is important too, so the key thing is how you combine local knowledge with that science. There's another thing that would be in the column of the federal government.

There are lots of other things that could be moved over to the community, that the federal government could actually give to community organizations.

¾ (0850)

Mr. Bob Wood: I think in the last little while we've also realized that for some reason—God knows why—DFO is very reluctant to tap into local knowledge and local resources and make that phone call to ask, how's it going, or can you give me some ideas, or whatever. It seems to be an ego thing with DFO, that they don't want to rely on the people who are actually doing the work. We've seen it time and time again in the last couple of days, and even in some of our hearings in Ottawa we see it, that they're reluctant to go out and gather information from people like you or Ms. Rhynold, or that organization.

Mr. Arthur Bull: I guess I'll just reiterate what Mr. Stoffer said, that the DFO people in the regions are very knowledgeable. They know a lot about what's going on and have a lot of experience there. Somewhere beyond that—

Mr. Bob Wood: There's a vacuum there somewhere.

Mr. Arthur Bull: Yes.

Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. That was interesting. In relationship to your comments there, Mr. Wood, if only facial expressions could be transcribed.

I am sorry to prolong things, but I just have a couple of issues. One of them was thoroughly dealt with by Mr. Wood, which was the enforcement question I had. But the other one I'd like to address specifically to Mr. Bull, and it relates to the two recommendations.

We get briefing notes so that we are advised of some of the issues, and I'd just like to read to you what we've been told about the issue of, shall we say, enforcing policy. After that, I'll have a question. It reads:

It is not correct to say that the federal government could correct the problem of private contractual arrangements between fishermen and processors simply by enforcing the Fleet Separation Policy. The Fleet Separation Policy is a policy, not a statute or a regulation. DFO can only apply the policy within the limits of its jurisdiction to ensure that fishing licences are not transferred to corporations. Furthermore, the department does not have the authority to prevent the kinds of arrangements at issue here

—these are the trust agreements we're talking about—

since they do not involve the transfer of the licence to a corporation but rather a private contractual arrangement made between individual fishermen and processors. Even if it was within its authority, there is no practical way for DFO to enforce details of such contracts, the numbers of which could potentially run into the thousands. Finally, contracts generally come under provincial jurisdiction as a matter of property and civil rights within the province, section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

There are ways to close the loopholes, including putting them into regulations, and that's fine. You've made that point and we understand it. My question is, given what I just read to you, could you give me some examples of recent actions by DFO gulf region that show you that it's possible for the department to vigorously enforce these policies with positive results?

¾ (0855)

Mr. Arthur Bull: I can't, to the best of my knowledge. But I have to give the condition that I'm not a lawyer and I'm not totally up on the situation, so I am giving you what I understand the situation to be.

But I do understand that in the gulf region of DFO they did say to somebody with a trust agreement that they were in contravention of the owner-operator policy, and that there is a court case pending about that. This is about crab licences that are owned by a Newfoundland company and that were being moved out of New Brunswick. There were trust agreements set up, and as I understand it.... My information comes primarily from the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters, so I'm hoping that if they give testimony you will direct this to them, because they are well briefed. In fact, they are in the courtroom on that particular issue.

As I understand it, in the gulf region DFO did say to the fishermen in trust agreements that they had two years to terminate the trust agreement, and the legal proceedings ensued.

The Chair: I can see why.

Mr. Arthur Bull: You can see why.

I really have to say I can't give a lawyer's opinion on this, although as a layman, as a citizen.... Let's say Revenue Canada or CCRA goes to a small business down the road, and this person says he's an owner-operator, and fills out his tax form and is licensed as an owner-operator, and it turns out that actually the business is owned by Sobey's through some civil agreement. I don't think they would actually have any problem saying, that's not the case; you're not presenting yourself to the federal government in a straightforward way. You are actually misrepresenting the nature of your business. You say you are small business, and you are licensed as a small business, but actually you're an employee of another business.

Why is DFO all of a sudden so gentle on this? It's an odd combination with DFO. They are authoritarian one day, and the next day they are saying, oh, we couldn't disturb that, because it involves an investment; we wouldn't want anybody to lose something like that. The Minister of the Environment will go to a gas station and say, your gas tank under the ground is no longer environmentally sound, so take it out; the environment trumps your economic needs. And the gas station owner says, but I'll go out of business. Do you know what the federal government says in that case? You'll go out of business.

So why is DFO so sensitive around this? Could it be that the big players in the fishery have an inordinate amount of influence on DFO? That's what it looks like to the coastal communities of Nova Scotia, that the policy decisions in Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada are driven by the most powerful interests in the fishery, and that's really what is underlying this whole thing. Again, it's not a legal opinion, but it sure looks as if the federal government becomes very cautious and gentle--kinds of hands off--in some cases, and in other cases they are caught.

I'm just giving you the perspective of what it looks like. I'll tell you, from the point of view of coastal communities in Nova Scotia, there is a very widespread belief that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have been acting in the interests of large interests in the fisheries day in and day out for at least the last 20 years. That's the backdrop of this whole thing.

The Chair: Well, I think that's a great place to leave your testimony. Let us think about that.

Thank you very, very much. Once again, I appreciate the fact that you were succinct. Many thanks.

¿ (0900)

Mr. Arthur Bull: Thank you.

The Chair: Colleagues, we now have, from the Coastal Communities Network, Scott Milsom; and from LFA 34 Lobster Committee, Ashton Spinney. Welcome, gentlemen.

You were here so you heard what I said to the other witnesses, and I would appreciate your cooperation in that regard. Who would like to go first?

Mr. Scott Milsom (Communications Officer, Coastal Communities Network): Apparently I've been given the go-ahead.

I'm the communications officer with the Coastal Communities Network, which is an umbrella organization of over 250 community-based organizations, not all fisheries, not all agriculture, not all forestry, but across the board they are groups that care about the future of coastal and rural Nova Scotia.

We're talking here today about policy, and we're talking specifically here today about policy within DFO. DFO has a policy, Transport Canada has a policy, and all these different policies impact coastal communities. We just heard from Arthur, who is from Digby County, and from Pat, who is from Guysborough County. The impact that policy is having upon the areas where these people come from is severe. The last census data tell us—and I'm not speaking from my notes; I'll do that in a minute—that Guysborough County, in the last decade, has lost 12% of its population and Digby county has lost over 9% of its population. This is a trend that policy drives forward.

I know we're here today to speak specifically about DFO policy, but there's an overarching set of policies that is severely threatening coastal communities and rural communities within Nova Scotia. That's my mandate, coastal and rural communities within Nova Scotia.

Now I will read my brief.

I'm presenting this brief to the standing committee today on behalf of the Coastal Communities Network, which we also call CCN, regarding the Atlantic fisheries policy review—which I will not abbreviate—in general, but in particular I'm here to talk about the proposed provisions relating to the owner-operator and the fleet separation licensing policies.

CCN represents more than 250 coastal, rural, and small-town Nova Scotian organizations that care about the future of rural and coastal Nova Scotia. For the past 11 years, we've worked closely with fisheries organizations as well as with a wide range of other community-rooted organizations across the province.

Part of CCN's mandate is to identify issues that are affecting our coastal and rural communities, as I pointed out a minute ago. When we speak publicly on an issue, as in this case, we ensure that we are reflecting the widespread concern of our broad membership. We don't come out and talk about this policy or that policy off the cuff. Anything we say about any policy issue goes through our democratic membership process, and this was discussed at our board of directors and membership meeting earlier this week.

Our board of directors and member organizations are very concerned about changes to the licensing policy being proposed as part of the Atlantic fisheries policy review. These proposed changes represent a major shift in federal licensing policy and they're being made with very little input from fisheries organizations and their communities. Rather, they seem to represent the interests of the few processing companies that would benefit from these changes.

There are two aspects to these proposed changes. First, there is the undermining of the owner-operator principle. The provision put forward—and I think it's on page 25 of the draft policy—appears to completely undermine the existing owner-operator policy, making it possible for fleets to opt out of it. This, in effect, would end the concept of the owner-operator licensing policy.

Secondly, the principle of fleet separation is completely absent from the proposed policy. This implies that the new policy will support the trend of processing companies owning fleets. In earlier consultations held on the policy review around Atlantic Canada, there was an overwhelming call for the strengthening of the operator, owner-operator, and fleet separation policies. DFO is now proposing to do the opposite by weakening them.

¿ (0905)

What is most disturbing to the Coastal Communities Network is the fact that this major policy shift is being threatened without any significant public debate. I guess we're having it here, or maybe we're starting it here. In fact, what is needed is the closing of the loopholes that now—and we talked earlier about trust agreements and stuff like that—largely circumvent present policy and the strengthening of the owner-operator and fleet separation policies. These should be given the force of law, and they could be.

Rural Nova Scotians believe that inshore independent fisheries are the backbone of our coastal communities. They ask, why is our federal government proposing to further undermine the small business sector of our fisheries? These proposed changes will only further the concentration of ownership that has already hurt so many communities—talk to my friend in Canso. They would mean a massive loss of jobs and they would be very harmful to the fabric of Nova Scotia's coastal communities.

Therefore, CCN respectfully makes the following recommendations to the standing committee.

First, we recommend that the standing committee ask the minister to delay the presentation of the Atlantic fisheries policy review until there has been a much fuller discussion of the owner-operator and fleet separation issues. If the standing committee wishes, the Coastal Communities Network would be willing to facilitate this process in Nova Scotia. We can't go beyond Nova Scotia; that's our mandate.

Secondly, we recommend that the standing committee recommend to the minister that the existing owner-operator and fleet separation policies be given the force of law.

Finally, we recommend that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans hold further discussions with fisheries organizations before making this major policy change.

I thank you for this opportunity.

The Chair: Again, thanks for the written presentation and the specific recommendations. It's much appreciated.

Before I go to questions, you referred to what you thought was page 25 of the draft policy. We're having some difficulty finding the draft policy.

Mr. Scott Milsom: I had some difficulty last night.

The Chair: Do you have a copy of it?

Mr. Scott Milsom: No, I don't at the moment. I went to DFO's website last night. I thought I would find a pdf document, but I just found this long scroll thing that had no pages on it. I've been told that page 25 is a problem.

The Chair: Our researcher tells me we have a discussion paper as opposed to a draft policy. Is that--

Mr. Scott Milsom: Okay, that's the one. My apologies.

The Chair: All right. There's nothing wrong with that. We just want to make sure we know what we're talking about.

¿ (0910)

Mr. Scott Milsom: Now I've got something in front of me.

The Chair: All right. If you happen to have a copy of that, I can ask our researcher to take a look at it and see if it's the same thing.

In the meantime, while he's doing that, I'll ask Mr. Spinney to make his presentation.

Mr. Ashton Spinney (Chair, Lobster Advisory Committee, Lobster Fishing Area 34): Mr. Chairman, distinguished members, thank you for the privilege of being able to appear before you this morning.

I'll go right to the brief, which is before you, and try to make it as quickly as possible. We'll go from there.

This brief to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is on behalf of Lobster Fishing Area 34 (LFA 34), southwest Nova Scotia.

The fishermen, our families, and our communities have very grave concerns about the Atlantic fisheries policy review. The lobster industry in southwest Nova is the most lucrative in Canada, with a yearly landing value of over a quarter of a billion dollars.

Our membership is concerned with the changes in the licensing policy proposed or ignored in the Atlantic fisheries policy review, AFPR, with regard to: the owner-operator policy, which is undermined; the fleet separation policy, which is non-existent; the overall length in the lobster fishing vessel requirement of 44 feet, 11 inches, with a five-foot extension out of the water, which is not addressed, but we can talk about that point later—I'm sure you might have some questions there; and access to the fisheries loan board funding to purchase lobster enterprises for the first-time lobster harvester.

The proposed fisheries policy direction and principles are in direct conflict with and in direct opposition to the recommendations put forth to the policy review committee by numerous fisheries and community groups in Atlantic Canada, including LFA 34. It is clear that a few corporate-owned integrated fleets will be the beneficiaries of the recommended policy changes, to the detriment of owner-operator fleets and Atlantic Canada coastal communities.

Why were the policies taken out of fisheries regulations? What was the gain and for who? Why are fisheries policies not enforced by DFO? Nine hundred and sixty-eight licence holders in our lobster industry in southwest Nova are of major economic importance for crews, families, buyers, truckers, stores, wholesalers, etc. Approximately 200 of the LFA 34 lobster licence enterprises are now owned as trust agreements by the corporate sector. If this trend continues, the lobster industry will be no different from other vertically integrated fisheries sectors, such as scallop and groundfish, with very few independent owner-operator fish harvesters.

The federal custodians of our public resource must not allow the corporate takeover of the lobster industry. Fisheries owned solely by corporations show no remorse in leaving fishing families and coastal communities barren, with no fish and no jobs, as they take their profits and quota elsewhere. Speak with the folks who live in the Nova Scotia communities of Canso, Lunenburg, and Lockeport if you are unsure how this happens or of the impact on our families and our coastal communities. The independent inshore fish harvesters' enterprise and their crew invest their earnings back into the local economy. The corporate sector keeps upwards of 40% of their profits to purchase more fishing access or invest outside the Atlantic region in corporate interests.

Corporate-driven enterprises, without doubt, create more effort on the lobster stocks. Rent-a-captains are instructed by corporate owners when, where, and how to fish, creating more effort. More lives are placed in danger as hired skippers are required to go to sea when independent fishers stay at the wharf because of hazardous weather. Crews receive less pay, covering more of the harvesting costs, and they also receive a lower price per pound for lobster, thus enabling corporations to increase their profit lines. As a result, fishing families in local communities are the losers in the corporate takeover, fully supported through the inaction of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to enforce current policy and regulations.

Licence holders who invested in building and modifying their lobster vessels—as you see, this is 44 feet, 11 inches, and this is just one little paragraph in there—to be longer than policy regulations did so knowingly, and DFO turned a blind eye, allowing this to happen. The Minister of Fisheries is obligated to enforce DFO policy. In the past, lobster licences were removed from vessels that were in violation of the fisheries regulation of length overall being 44 feet, 11 inches.

¿ (0915)

Ignoring these violations is no longer acceptable to the vast majority of industry stakeholders in LFA 34. To sanction such blatant disregard for fisheries regulations and policy by a few who acted in self-interest and greed is to encourage chaos and dire consequences for the entire lobster fishing industry.

Fleet separation. The federal Government of Canada, through fleet separation policies, severely limits the ability of non fish harvesters and processing companies to hold commercial fishing licences. Fleet separation and owner policies were first developed in the late 1970s. They were embodied by DFO in a 1989 licensing policy.

Policy without DFO enforcement has brought about the undermining of crucial policies by processing companies for the benefits of processing interests, thus gaining effective control over fishing enterprises by writing civil contracts called trust agreements. These vertically integrated fish companies continue to erode owner-operator policy and they call for an end to fleet separation.

Fish stocks worldwide are destroyed by the same type of land-based integrated market-driven producers. This is a major Atlantic fishery concern, but it is also an international issue. In our view, there must be a reaffirmation of fleet separation and, over the longer term, a complete restoration of the inshore fleet to professional fish harvesters so that they may continue their vital role in the management of the commercial fishery.

This view, supported by coastal residents and inshore fish harvesters' organizations across Atlantic Canada, is found in document after document and presentation after presentation given to fishing industry policy-makers. For too long these views of the majority have gone unheeded.

Should policy-makers take the time to closely examine the historical and social scientific sources, they will see that where fishing communities and fish harvesters have been able to retain control over their fishing grounds, they have also taken the means to protect and conserve the resources for future generations.

These four fishing policy regulations are key strategies necessary to maintain a viable inshore lobster fishery. The undermining of these four policy regulations is a strategy of corporatism to take over the multi-million-dollar inshore lobster industry and put it into the hands of a few.

By turning a blind eye to policy and regulation infractions, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Honourable Robert Thibault, is paving the road to a corporate takeover and managed lobster industry, with quotas, large vessels, and increased fishing effort.

The frustration of the local fish harvesters is mounting at the wharf level as fish harvesters and their crews learn that DFO at the Ottawa level ignore their repeated requests for enforcement of current policy and current regulations.

We're not asking for major policy changes. A vast majority of LFA 34 fish harvesters back current policy and regulations. They also want DFO to enforce these policies of owner-operator, vessel overall length, and fleet separation.

The very intense lobby tactics of a few industry participants have brought about a major shift in the minister's attitude, where he ignores a democratic process in LFA 34, he ignores local and regional DFO recommendations, and he supports a major economic loss to coastal Canadians.

¿ (0920)

Pros of LFA 34 strategy to strengthen owner-operator, fleet separation, and vessel length restrictions as it impacts on coastal communities: local people remain employed, profits stay in-region, community economic sustainability, sustainable harvesting practices are maintained, public lobster resources benefit the public majority, a sustainable lobster fishing industry for future generations.

Cons of endorsing further undermining of owner-operator, fleet separation, and vessel length restrictions impact on coastal communities: thousands of local people will lose their livelihood; profits are exported offshore; more jobs are lost to local stores; gas stations, churches, schools, and hospitals close; communities become economically unsustainable; increased effort on fish stocks as corporate lobbyists continue to sway policy-makers to allow the increase of vessel size, transferable tags, year-round fishing, etc.; depleted lobster stocks; public resource benefits a few multi-million dollar businesses that may not even be Canadian-owned.

The recommendations we put forth to the standing committee on fisheries are to take positive steps to strengthen the current owner-operator policy in support of our traditional fisheries and our coastal communities.

One, close the existing loopholes in the licensing policy that allow for circumvention of owner-operator and fleet policies.

Two, give owner-operator and fleet separation policies the force of law by making them a part of the regulations of the Fisheries Act.

Three, make owner-operator a fishing licence condition.

Four, establish in consultation with LFA district 34 lobster committee a sunset clause, to be implemented forthwith, to dissolve the trust agreement's lobster fisheries that are in conflict with current owner-operator policy.

Maintain and strengthen the fleet separation policy. Processors process fish stocks. Fisher harvesters have access to and harvest all fish species.

Place the current lobster fishing industry policy of vessel length overall—44 feet, 11 inches, with a five-foot extension out of the water—back into regulation and ensure DFO enforcement.

Revamp Nova Scotia Fisheries Loan Board to include access to funding for first-time lobster fish harvesters to purchase lobster enterprises.

We again acknowledge that it is not too late for our federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Honourable Robert Thibault, to address these grave issues to ensure a future for owner-operator fishing enterprises, the economic sustainability for coastal communities, and a fishery resource for future generations of Canadians. Current policy, crucial regulations, and specifically the credibility of the lobster advisory process between industry and DFO are at stake.

The last four pages are communications that were sent on April 23 to the honourable minister, and we included those for your information.

I thank you for your time.

The Chair: Mr. Spinney, my compliments to you as well, in the same manner as to Mr. Milsom and the previous witnesses.

We'll start with Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Once again, thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for coming and presenting to our committee today. We do need to hear from people who are directly involved in the industry—a stakeholder that is very important to the existence and the continued existence of the fishery.

Again, as I said earlier, representing a maritime riding on the west coast of Canada, I hear the same kinds of problems as on the east coast. It's something that's right across the country. I appreciate Mr. Milsom's coming and sharing. I'm vice-chair of the Pacific coastal parliamentarian caucus and I recognize the great work that coastal communities networks do across the country to continue to bring these issues to the public's attention and to make the possibility of communication much better.

One of the things we hear over and over again, however, is that in the area of communication and consultation, fishers are continuing to make representation, to make recommendations, and communities make recommendations, yet they don't believe they're being heard. How can we help you to change that? Do you have any strategies that you haven't used yet or things that you think need to be done to make this consultation process better?

¿ (0925)

Mr. Scott Milsom: I'm not sure. I'm not sure what happens between... I was present at earlier consultations—the Atlantic fisheries policy review process on the Kearney Lake Road in Halifax and in a couple of other places—and I heard what people, including Ashton and others, said. And I read of other consultations that took place from Iqaluit to Yarmouth. I heard repeatedly that in those representations people from coastal communities and people on the water who are engaged in fish harvesting called again and again for fleet separation policies, owner-operator policies.

I don't know if you guys know any more than I do about how the process goes from, okay, we've had all those meetings, we'll go back for a year, and then we'll come back with a document that reflects those discussions—and in fact the document doesn't reflect those discussions. There is not a mention of fleet separation in the draft document that I had a minute ago and I gave to you.

The Chair: Make sure they give it back.

Mr. Scott Milsom: We want it back. All right?

I don't know how that fleet separation and owner-operator, but particularly fleet separation, get completely knocked out of the process. And owner-operator is called something you can do or you cannot do; in other words, it doesn't matter. People from Atlantic Canada told the Atlantic fisheries policy review people, when they came around, that these are vital and fundamental to the coastal community. Why they got gouged out, I don't know.

What do you think, Ashton?

Mr. Ashton Spinney: How can you help? Seriously.

Mr. Reed Elley: That's what we're here for.

Mr. Ashton Spinney: I think, to be very candid with you, that the greatest help Parliament could be for the fishery is to take the power out of Kent Street. I'm being candid and open, very straight from the heart. We have very, very good men hired to do work in our local DFO offices—Halifax, through the different communities—very capable men, but the thumb is on them. They can't do one earthly thing unless somebody out of Ottawa tells them what to do, and that someone out of Ottawa is so out of touch. What can you do?

It's not that there's not a need for DFO Ottawa; there is, but they have to allow the people they've hired to do the work they've hired them to do. If they just get a puppet to pull by the strings, that puppet's not doing anything. That's sad, but it's true.

You were into some discussions here, and if I may say so, financing for DFO is being chopped. I shouldn't talk too much, but I am privileged and I feel it's only responsible to speak to you. There's a slicing. Jobs are being chopped, and although the head of enforcement in eastern Canada tells me we're not losing any jobs, I differ. We have lost all of our offshore patrol boats, the large fisheries offshore patrol boats. They're scrapped. All the fishery officers who were on those boats lost their jobs—lost jobs. Who's doing the enforcement off there now? Nobody. It's wide open.

From our perspective as fishermen, it's disgraceful. We pay in moneys and moneys and get nothing in return. It's not saying that the officers there are not doing fine work; they are. They can only do so much and they need the resources, the equipment, to work with. If you hire people to do a job and you don't give them any tools, they can't do their job. It's that simple. It doesn't take a lawyer to sit here and tell you that there are major problems.

From our perspective, the major problem is not from Halifax to Yarmouth, where I live; the problem is from Ottawa down to Halifax. I'm being very candid and very open with you. I'd be irresponsible if I wasn't.

¿ (0930)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Elley.

Monsieur Roy.

Mr. Ashton Spinney: You wouldn't think I live with French Acadian people around me and work with them. But I apologize, I cannot speak one word.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Very well.

I would like to come back to the question I put earlier to the first two witnesses. The lobster fishery is what insiders call a competitive fishery, because you have a quota and you must fill it as quickly as possible. In the case of the other fisheries, there are individual quotas, and you and the two previous witnesses seem to be opposed to individual quotas.

But the answer I get every time I ask the question is that in the case of other fisheries, of fisheries where there is processing involved, such as the shrimp or the crab fisheries, it is impossible to have a competitive fishery. The processing plants would obviously not be able to deal with a competitive fishery, because, if we take the case of the shrimp fishery for example, a plant could not process thousands of tons of shrimp all at once. These fisheries must therefore be spread out over time. The reason why there are individual quotas is precisely so that the effort can be spread out rather than concentrated, because otherwise the plants would simply overflow and would not be able to keep up.

I would like to know your views on this, because I would like to get a handle on how we might apply the principle followed in the case of the lobster fishery to other sectors. I got a partial answer earlier.

[English]

Mr. Scott Milsom: Wow, that's quite a question.

The lobster fishery has perhaps been fortunate in that the technology that's involved in bringing lobsters up from the bottom of the ocean is not nearly as amenable to capital intensivity as were groundfish.

I think I use the past tense because there was an intensification of effort and an intensification of capital. Corporations saw a profit for the next quarter.

I may be getting a little off the point, and I apologize, but when you have small business and lobster fishermen in Yarmouth, in Pomquet, or wherever, that business person is within that community and is a part of that community and inevitably has a stake in that community. The lobster fishery is fortunate in that. I think it's largely just a matter of the luck of the technology whereby you draw lobsters off the bottom of the ocean. If there was another way to harvest lobsters, I'm afraid a lot of coastal communities would have already been devastated, because capital would have come in, and then large corporations that don't care about what happens in the Pubnicos, because they don't live in the Pubnicos; they live in Toronto, New York, Paris, or London.

I may not be answering your question directly, but that's my sense, my understanding of why the lobster fishery has remained the cornerstone.

The groundfishery has gone down. We've had this crisis in the groundfishery. But if you look at the total value of fish landings in Nova Scotia, they've been going up for the last decade, and yet, at the same time, the number of people involved in the fishery has been coming down. It's a policy disconnect.

¿ (0935)

Mr. Ashton Spinney: Competition, that's really what you're talking about. I thank the good Lord we have a competitive fishery in lobster. It is open.

I'll give you a little history here. I'm a third-generation lobster fisherman. As a young boy, I started in the fishery at 25 pennies. I got a licence to go into the fishery. For your information, now that's worth between $600,000 and $1 million. It will be turned over to my son for as little profit as I can possibly pass it to him for, whatever Revenue Canada will allow me to do. It has served me over these years, and I continue to thank the good Lord for it.

It's good that we have a competitive fishery. There are processors and dealers who would like a stranglehold on that. In fact, there was a piece in the Chronicle-Herald last Saturday about processors. They were crying that they couldn't get the choice product that is going to the consumer.

But the part is, the price is what demands where the product goes. If you're not willing to pay the price, you're not going to get the product; I don't care if you have fish or produce out of the garden. For the farmer, if he is in beef, wheat, or whatever, the price dictates where it goes, and competition is what is needed.

We plant wheat, for instance, in the west, and I know nothing about wheat, but I know this: when the harvest comes in, there's bulk. It has always been that way. It has always been that way in fish.

We are not afforded the luxury of lobster to go out and say, well, tomorrow I know there will be lobster there. It doesn't work that way. There are lobster there, but they don't crawl in the trap.

I was out fishing yesterday morning prior to leaving to come here. We had a 50- or 60-mile-an-hour wind, and there was a big swell. There were no lobster in the traps. We turned and came home because they weren't fishing that day. But the processors say, well, we want the same amount of lobster today. It doesn't work that way.

But we need the processors. We need the buyers. We need those people. We need that whole circle. We can't go out and chop a chunk off the length of the chain and throw it away and say we don't want it. We need that. It makes a healthy industry. To allow one aspect of it to become the lion is destructive, is detrimental to our industry. That's why this loss of owner-operator is so detrimental.

If I may, I want to express to you here something that's not in this document but I want to show you.

Minister Robert Thibault says to me, Ash, we're going to do it by fleet; the fleet is going to have the option of whether they want owner-operator.

I represent 968 licence holders. That's not counting the men who work there. Those are actual licence holders, the men I'm responsible for and answerable to, and so on.

For the sake of discussion, let's name a port, say the town of Yarmouth. They look at it and say, well, Mr. Minister, we have special recognition because we live in Yarmouth and we feel that we should be recognized as a fleet. So they go out and say, we don't want owner-operator.

He says to me, LFA 34 is a fleet. Well, in his eyes, yes, but down the road it may not be Minister Thibault. I started out with Mr. Tobin, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Dhaliwal, and now it's Mr. Thibault.

So what are we saying? We need it written down so that the next man who comes along reads that this is what it means. We need to have it spelled out. If it says it goes by fleet, it has to identify the fleet, so no part of that fleet can opt out and cause serious problems.

¿ (0940)

We have fleets that have been in groundfish and are now trying to get into the lucrative lobster fishery. It's the big money. That's the only reason they're coming in there. They're trying to bring in the same mentality that destroyed the groundfish, and we are resisting.

The Chair: Did you want to add something, Mr. Milsom?

Mr. Scott Milsom: Yes. What I think Ashton or his network is largely speaking about—speaking just of LFA 34, which is Shelburne, Digby, and Yarmouth counties—what's at stake here and what's threatened here by these proposed changes in DFO policy is in fact 968 independent small businesses.

Government at all levels has been saying for years—and it's true—that small business is the engine of economic growth and the engine of economic sustainability. Ashton used the figure of 200 trust agreements already amongst those 968 licences. In essence, that's 200 small businesses that no longer exist.

We're here today to defend the remaining 768 businesses, not to punish those people who may have entered into trust agreements because that was the way for them personally to better themselves. We don't have any wish to punish those 200, or whatever, who may have gone into those trust agreements.

Beyond LFA 34, the same thing applies in LFA—you name the number, all around the coast of Nova Scotia. These are small business that this proposed policy will just snuff out, and our communities are going to die.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ash and Scott, for your presentations.

I have two questions, one for Scott and one for Ash—if you don't mind my calling you Ash.

Mr. Ashton Spinney: Not at all.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thanks.

Scott, we hear about the coastal communities and the desire for coastal communities and individual communities to be able to control—obviously with proper regulations—their destiny, to be able to say this is what we as a community would like to see for us currently and in the future.

We have two examples in Nova Scotia where you seem to have the overwhelming desire of a community—and I take Northwest Cove as an example—where over 90% of the people said no to an aquaculture site in their area, yet one was placed upon them by willing provincial and federal governments that listened to one voice and ignored the vast majority.

I'd like your comment on that, and as well—and you know I've raised this issue before with the minister—the Digby Neck quarry.

Ash, you and your friend Wayne know very well what could happen to the lobster industry, which is a sustainable industry for an indefinite period of time. If it's managed correctly, your great-great-grandchildren could be doing it, if they so desire.

This quarry is provincially driven but could be under federal regulations by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Again, the communities of those areas at Sandy Cove and Digby Neck are saying overwhelmingly, we don't want this to happen; we have a way of life that is sustainable in the short term and long term.

So from a coastal communities perspective, or on behalf of those communities, I'd like you to answer why you think government is giving them something they don't wish to have or forcing them to do something.

Ashton, in your case, when I became a member of Parliament in 1997, I got on this committee, and almost instantly I said, you're going to see the day when we see an ITQ in the lobster fishery. I was ridiculed by lobster fishermen and everybody, from here until the cows come home. They said, you're absolutely nuts; you will never see it.

I fear that day is not that far away. I hear from lobster fishermen now who are saying, we think it may happen, and instead of these little boats with 250 or 300 traps, what's stopping the government from allowing a big company one big huge boat, like they do off Georges Bank, and do that on the inshore?

I see that day coming. It's much more efficient, it's easier to manage, and those pesky independent fishermen in those damn coastal communities can just get out of the way and let big guys take over. Am I wrong in that?

As I said yesterday, Mr. Chair, am I out to lunch? You said, don't leave yourself open like that. But I fear that is the direction in which it's going. Please tell me that I'm wrong.

¿ (0945)

The Chair: Gentlemen, I throw out a challenge to you to see if you can make your answers shorter than the question.

Mr. Ashton Spinney: At a roundtable meeting that we had within industry, Mr. Bellefontaine made it very clear to all the participants that LFA 34 Lobster was not entertaining, or looking at, quotas anywhere in the foreseeable future, and we are advocating the same thing.

But I have to say something to you about a democratic process that's gone on in LFA 34. This 44 feet, 11 inches is on the policy. It pertains to LFA 33 and 34 only, and the vessel length in the water cannot be any longer than 44 feet, 11 inches. There were people circumventing this, putting in false documents because--and I'll tell you how, and please forgive me, Mr. Chairman. What happens for me to go to licensing is that I have to then build a new vessel, go to a qualified, government-authorized measurer of vessels, who will present a paper that states that my vessel is 44 feet , 11 inches long. That's official. He puts this down. He signs it. I sign it. I take it in to licensing, and they give me my lobster licence based on that.

What people have done is, after he's filled out that paper, they get the boat builder to add five feet on the stern and it becomes 50 foot, but it's not recorded that way. It's a false document. But that's what has happened. Fisheries has not done anything about it, and the fishermen in the LFA 34 have said we want it cleared up. We don't care what direction it goes in as long as it's fair for every licence holder, whatever the decision is.

It was a democratic decision of the fishermen in LFA 34 that it remain at 44 feet, 11 inches and we would allow a ramp-style addition of five feet—not five foot in the water but a ramp style. The minister is balking at that because he's talking about grandfathering a select few that have lobbied him very, very vigorously in opposition to 80% of the licence holders. That causes grave concern to us when it comes to owner-operated. We see something that was democratically done by LFA 34, and here's the minister stepping in to change it. That same thing will happen with owner-operated fleet separation.

We are petrified of the implications that are there and that's why, if I may take your time, we are here today to make known to you people that there are areas that you may not be aware of where there's unfair treatment—the democratic process being completely ignored.

And I'm talking about a democratic process where there was a mail-out to every licence holder, and we have them. I have all these mailings from every licence holder.

Anyhow, thank you.

¿ (0950)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Spinney.

Did you want to make a comment?

Mr. Scott Milsom: I will try to be a little briefer.

The Chair: He lost my challenge.

Mr. Scott Milsom: I'm not exactly sure. You mentioned the Northwest Cove situation and the Digby Neck situation. I know firsthand about Northwest Cove because my sister and brother-in-law have raised a family there and I know the feeling in Northwest Cove is completely opposed to that aquaculture development out of Horse Island—I think it's called Horse Island.

I've been down to Digby Neck a number of times and I know you can't drive by a house without seeing “Stop the Quarry”.

If your question is why is there a disconnect between policy and public sentiment, that's a broader question about our whole civil society. I know that as our coastal and rural communities in Nova Scotia are hemorrhaging, people are feeling the sense of crisis. Halifax is booming, and all power to Halifax for booming. But our rural and coastal communities around the province, outside of the main corridor and outside of commuting distance to Halifax, are hemorrhaging. Cape Breton has lost 9% of its population in 10 years.

I don't know, Peter. This is a democracy. Let's see what democracy looks like.

There. Did I keep it shorter?

The Chair: Very good. Thank you.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for your evidence. We appreciate it. We've heard you loud and clear. We'll see if we can get it to 200 Kent Street.

Change of program, colleagues. Ignore the agenda in front of you, and we're going to call up the Sierra Club of Canada, please.

For the benefit of the people in the room, after the Sierra Club of Canada, we'll hear from Debbie MacKenzie. After Debbie MacKenzie, we'll hear from the Digby Neck and Islands Society.

I have to keep that timeframe to approximately one hour because I know that you're add-ons and we've had some room. I'm going to ask each of you to keep your remarks as brief as possible, and I'll have to be reasonably strict so that we allow for some questions. If it turns out that there are no questions, then I can let you conclude.

Mark Dittrick. Welcome, sir, and please begin.

Mr. Mark Dittrick (Conservation Chair, Atlantic Canada Chapter, Sierra Club of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for holding hearings in Nova Scotia and for allowing me the time to present.

My name is Mark Dittrick, and I am conservation chair of the Atlantic Canada chapter of the Sierra Club of Canada.

I'll skip a little bit of the information on the Sierra Club and say instead that as the conservation chair of Sierra's Atlantic chapter, I am probably a little more familiar with climate change issues and forestry practices. I could probably keep you enthralled for hours on municipal solid waste management—and don't get me going on the Digby Neck quarry, because we would be here for days.

The Sierra Club of Canada is proud to have been among the founding organizations of the Save Our Seas and Shores Coalition. The coalition was founded in the fall of 1999 in response to the issuance of licences to oil and gas companies in some of the richest fishing grounds in Canada. These leases were issued without any public consultation or even the constitutionally required consultation with first nations.

The SOSS Coalition now numbers among its supporters and member groups every fishermen's organization in Atlantic Canada; the major tourism associations of Nova Scotia, including TIANS; the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs; every environmental group in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick; every whale watch captain on Cape Breton Island; and many individuals and local citizens.

We greatly appreciate the leadership shown on this issue by your committee and by a number of its members, from the former chair, the Honourable Wayne Easter, who appeared before the Public Review Commission, as did Peter Stoffer, to John Cummins, who has been very concerned and helpful. It is rare in politics to see an all-party committee with members from left, right, and centre all speaking so clearly on behalf of the fishermen in the ecosystem.

The views of the committee were made clear in your report on the Oceans Act in the fall of 2001. At that time, the committee pointed out that the leases along coastal Cape Breton should never have been issued. Your report highlighted the inconsistency between the authority given the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans under the Oceans Act and the regulatory powers of the unelected Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, CNSOPB. Your report called upon the government to institute a moratorium on oil and gas exploration and development in Sydney Bight and the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence.

In this, the House of Commons committee is not alone. The expert advisory group to the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, the FRCC, made the same recommendation and extended it to the entire gulf. In the spring of 2000, they said:

Several scientific works have described the detrimental effect of seismic blasting on every life stage of fish. It is also known that drilling releases toxic elements into the environment. The FRCC recommends that any oil and gas production activities in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, from exploration to production phase, be postponed until a complete assessment, made through a transparent process, on the potential impact of those activities on marine life is made.

Many other bodies have made similar recommendations. Yet here we are in the spring of 2003 and the CNSOPB is still running the show. The conflict between the Oceans Act and the CNSOPB has still not been resolved. We have had a public review followed by an ad hoc working group.

The Sierra Club of Canada worked very hard in both these processes and expended serious resources to meet the challenge. We assembled a factual case against exploration that should have ended any thought of proceeding. In fact, in testimony before the Public Review Commission, the scientists at DFO testified that the areas in question were more diverse and sensitive than Georges Bank. Dr. Trevor Ketchington, testifying as an expert on behalf of the Union of Nova Scotia Indians, pointed out that the linked ecosystems of Sydney Bight and the southern gulf witness an annual migration of globally significant proportions. Over 1 million tons of animal life move between these systems.

The Sierra Club of Canada and the Save Our Seas and Shores Coalition witnesses demonstrated that the fisheries and tourism in the area in question provided direct and indirect jobs equal to 20% of all employment in Cape Breton, and 20,000 more jobs in the rest of Nova Scotia, P.E.I., and New Brunswick.

¿ (0955)

Our evidence demonstrated serious risks to fish and endangered species of whales and turtles. It was made clear that there was no science whatsoever on the impact of seismic testing on crab and lobster. Why are we still faced with the threat of seismic testing as early as this fall? The problem clearly lies with the fact that every step in the process has been controlled by the CNSOPB.

On March 7, 2003, the CNSOPB issued a dishonest news release designed to create the impression that permits for seismic testing in the most biologically rich waters in Atlantic Canada had been granted based on advice from an ad hoc multi-stakeholder advisory group. Neither was true; the permits were not yet issued, and the advisory group had not recommended proceeding with seismic testing.

The Sierra Club of Canada was represented on the advisory committee, along with fishermen, first nations, and others. The CNSOPB had insisted that the two oil and gas companies involved also serve on the committee. As a result, the consensus report had no shared recommendations. On every key point, it reported that the committee could not agree. As a result, the report reads as a reflection of views, as the following paragraph from the report indicates:

Some members of the Ad Hoc Working Group believe the concerns raised in the Cape Breton Review are similar to those raised on Georges Bank. They believe the weighing of risk and benefits in the two licence areas in Cape Breton's in-shore waters should be resolved in the same way, through a moratorium. Others do not agree. They feel the public regulatory system has evolved to the point where specific activities can be carefully examined on their own merits and a determination be made that takes into account the balance of risks and benefits within the parameters of known science.

Here is another excerpt from the report on the impacts of cod:

Consensus

The Ad Hoc Working Group accepts the work of the SRWG and that 4Vn resident cod stock is in a fragile state and that 4T cod stocks continue to decline.

The Ad Hoc Working Group accepts the conclusion of the SRWG that no opportunity exists between October and December that will eliminate the risks to all cod.

Both cod stocks must be given all feasible and reasonable opportunities to recover.

Recommendations

In balancing the potential risk to cod against the potential benefits of oil and gas development, the Ad Hoc Working Group agreed that the following views were held:

Some members felt the risk to cod stocks was acceptable given: the small scale of the seismic surveys; the low risk of harm to the cod population; the mitigation measures proposed; and the recommendations of the SRWG for EEM.

Some members of the Ad Hoc Working Group disagreed and felt that: there was no period which eliminated the risks to cod in either area; the seismic program in Sydney Bight was large in relation to the cod population; and viewed any additional risk to either cod population as unacceptable.

The process in no way created a rationale for proceeding, but the CNSOPB just decided to pretend that it did. I urge you to read the full report, to which both the Sierra Club of Canada and oil companies have signed on. It presents a pretty fair picture of the issues. It includes a report from the Science Review Committee, which had consultants from the oil companies as well as local scientists nominated by the Sierra Club of Canada and first nations. It too makes a strong case that there are serious risks to groundfish, particularly cod.

Now that northern cod is listed under the Species at Risk Act, surely there must be some way to protect the fragile stocks from blasting with air guns. Cod rely on acoustical methods for communication, which are integral to reproduction. It is reckless and irresponsible to allow blasting with seismic guns when a population is on the verge of extinction, and when recovery of that population could bring with it economic recovery for tens of thousands of people.

In conclusion, we desperately need this committee to reiterate its previous advice. We need the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to take a less passive role and to assume his authority under the Oceans Act. These rich fisheries, home to endangered species within and beyond ten kilometres of the shoreline, must not be allowed to be subjected to oil and gas exploration activities.

À (1000)

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, sir.

[Translation]

Mr. Roy, do you have any questions?

À (1005)

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: No, thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, for my colleague Mr. Elley, this is like the problem we have with oil and gas exploration out in British Columbia. It is a great advantage for people like my colleague Mr. Elley and people in British Columbia to learn from the mistakes we made in Cape Breton.

This is the same minister, by the way, who allowed dragging. He lifted a ten-year moratorium on winter dragging or on fishing right in the same area you mentioned, 4Vn. On the one hand, he talks about conservation so eloquently, saying that conservation is his guiding principle, then he allowed dragging to go on in the same area that this gentleman just presented on.

Mark, regarding the comparison to the Georges Bank, I remember the Georges Bank battle. It was a rigs-free campaign and it was very successful. They achieved a 12-year moratorium on oil and gas exploration in the entire Georges Bank.

We know that the area around Cape Breton and Sydney Bight is much more sensitive. Yet against the advice of this committee and many others, they seem to be proceeding ahead this fall with seismic testing. We simply don't have all the conclusive scientific evidence to determine what seismic blasts will do to cod stocks. We have very good anecdotal evidence and some scientific evidence that it will not be good. Yet, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has allowed this process to go through.

I guess my question is, if his main responsibility is the protection of fish and fish habitat, why would his department not take all the evidence before it and why would he not do his constitutional duty?

You also mentioned a press release of March 7. If you have a copy of it, would it be possible for the committee to get a copy too? You made a pretty strong statement that the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board issued a dishonest news release. We'd like to have a copy of that, because we'd like to call them one day and ask their point of view on that.

Mr. Mark Dittrick: I didn't bring a copy of it with me, but I could get one to you and everyone on this committee very quickly.

I think we have the same situation here that we have with....The fact is that the seismic testing off Cape Breton is a very, very large project. Actually, there is a comparison with the Digby Neck quarry; although they don't seem as if they have anything in common, it is the same situation. It seems that to DFO, large-scale industrial production seems to take precedence over fish stocks and fisheries and that sort of thing.

We just don't see the fisheries being protected; we see industry taking a front position, and we seem to put the health of the fisheries on the back burner.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mark, one thing that some people have said might be a factor is that it appears in the eyes of many fishermen in coastal communities that the oil and gas industry is there to replace the declining fishery.

Many people have made the argument that you could actually have both. If the oil and gas industry were regulated properly to mitigate to the minimum any kind of harmful activities to marine life, and if we got rid of draggers, for example, in very sensitive areas, we could actually have both. One would last for hundreds of years, and one would last until the oil and gas reserves are gone.

Yet editorials in various papers appear to favour one industry more or less replacing another one. Even though the one replacing the other is only here for the short term, the one being replaced could in reality be here for hundreds of years.

Mr. Mark Dittrick: The position of the Club Sierra is that the issuing of those licences around Cape Breton should not have proceeded without adequate environmental assessments being in place.

The Chair: Sir, as you're with the Sierra Club, do you have comments on seals?

Mr. Mark Dittrick: As far as their impact on cod stocks is concerned?

The Chair: Do you have any comments on seals, other than that you like or do not like them?

Mr. Mark Dittrick: No, we are not totally opposed to the seal hunt. I may be crossing the species barrier here, but we think that the seal is perhaps being used as a scapegoat for the complete decline of the cod stock.

Clearly, I think overfishing is probably the principal reason we have a declining cod stock. We don't know what impact the human intervention of seismic testing would be. We feel it would have a negative impact on cod stocks. So given that mix of overfishing and the intrusion of oil and gas exploration, we think that the seals are not the sole reason, but we don't think that increasing the size of the seal hunt is appropriate.

À (1010)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Indeed, yesterday in St. John's, I think we heard a fair consensus that the seals were not the cause of the collapse—but they may be a factor in the recovery.

Thank you very much, sir.

Ms. MacKenzie, you are next. I just want to draw your attention to the fact that you have a very detailed, lengthy paper. Of course, we and our researchers will take a good look at it.

May I ask you to perhaps highlight one or two points. I note, for example, that you make some interesting points on seals. We are certainly interested in the issue of seals, among other things, so perhaps you'd like to highlight those points, because they are different, or refreshing—to put it that way.

I leave it to you, as it's your presentation, but maybe you could take some direction from the chair.

À (1015)

The Chair: Wonderful. Thank you.

I have just a quick question. Have you have any dialogue with DFO scientists?

À (1020)

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie: I have attempted dialogue for about five years. Initially they responded to me because I was initially talking about fish stock assessments. They said, yes, that's interesting, and if we can help you with your research, fine. But when I tried to nail them on the plankton and what happened to the barnacles, it was a total brick wall, refusal to answer.

I've written to the director of BIO and said, look, you know I've put a lot of time into this and you know I'm concerned. When can I meet with you? I want to discuss my concerns. We can't meet. I find this unbelievable. Sometimes I'm sarcastic when I write; I don't know what I said here, but... There's something about this $6 million for the seal exclusion experiment that really goes down wrong when marine science cannot say what's happening to the plankton. Obviously the basis for a lot of the trouble is the plankton; the plankton is changing unexpectedly, unpredictably. DFO won't talk about it.

Now, to be fair to them, the Fisheries scientists—and there are some really good people in there, I know—can't talk about plankton; they're not plankton scientists. So I don't even think DFO is equipped to handle this as it is now, and I think if we want to start funding new marine research initiatives, we have to get a grip on the plankton.

À (1025)

The Chair: I don't want to monopolize the questioning, but to follow up on that, if you haven't talked with DFO scientists because they may or may not know about zooplankton, have you discussed it with any scientists or professors at universities?

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie: Yes. There are a few at Dalhousie who have finally tweaked and become interested. Martin Willison is one. He will be here presenting to you this afternoon.

Without getting too detailed, these little copepods, these little bugs that are the major tiny animal life, are migrating up and down in the sea. Mysteriously, these things will go 500 metres up and down every day and night—surface to depth. We can't figure out why they're doing it. There's another plankton researcher who's just retired from Dalhousie University. His name is Sifford Pearre.This year he published a major review on all the theories on why these plankton are going up and down.

I also published a little thing last year with a totally new hypothesis, why I think they're going up and down. It's because they're getting something when they go down. He responded very positively to what I wrote. He was very impressed. This is a person who's totally up on plankton. Why is he so impressed?

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Wood, do you have any questions?

Mr. Bob Wood: I might have some later, but I'm just listening.

The Chair: We don't hear about barnacles too often, so I know you're—

Mr. Bob Wood: No, no, but I'm listening. I'm learning.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you. You're right, we haven't heard the barnacle situation before, but we have heard about krill. We don't have a permanent ban on the krill fishery in Canada, but we have it on a year-to-year basis at the discretion of the minister, and obviously DFO.

Would you agree that one thing that would be helpful is a permanent ban on krill fisheries in Canadian waters? The reason I ask is this. At the Boston Seafood Show, there were four displays of fried krill, boiled krill, you-name-it krill, microwavable krill. I was thinking, this is nonsense; besides zooplankton, it's at the bottom of the food chain. In Newfoundland, we've heard concerns about capelin. Well, capelin eat krill. They also eat anything else. But if we start destroying the bottom of the food chain, then the upper levels start falling apart as well.

Would you support, or would you state to DFO that one thing that may be helpful is not only putting more money into science research...and probably you answered your own question when you said fishery science specialists are not plankton specialists. I'm not knocking anyone there, but maybe that's why you're not getting a meeting--because there may not be anyone there completely qualified to answer some of your questions.

Would a permanent ban on krill fishing be helpful? Obviously, instead of putting their money into seeing what seals eat, maybe they should put the money into other areas of ocean activities. Because it's always been said that we know more about the situation on the moon than we do in our own oceans.

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie: Yes, I obviously strongly agree with that. And your concern that harvesting krill might damage the bottom of the web is right, but I'm saying the bottom of the web is already damaged.

The Chair: Do you have anything else, Mr. Stoffer?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes. I just want to ask, are you saying, then, that the barnacles are more or less like our miners' canaries?

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie: I'm saying the barnacle is a really neat plankton index. It's how rich the seawater is: can you live here as a barnacle? They used to be able to live almost up to the high-tide mark. They're only underwater for a couple of hours in every tide cycle.

If the richness of the feeding opportunity drops, how high can you make it go if it drops? The thing comes down like a nice little meter, like a thermometer. And it has come down. And that's scary. This is not pollution, and it's not global warming. Just go down to the Halifax waterfront and have a look. There are loads of barnacles doing just fine--in the harbour. On clean coast, they're disappearing. That's more relevant to the fish stocks on the shelf.

The thing is, the trends that have happened with the plankton defy the models we believe to be running ocean life.

À (1030)

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's interesting, you know. In Halifax Harbour, everyone is very concerned about the pollution, yet barnacles live there just fine. On Peggy's Cove, a pristine area, the barnacles aren't living.

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie: It's not only in Peggy's Cove.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Bring on the raw sewage. Is that what you're saying?

The Chair: That's what the barnacles are saying.

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie: I have only so much energy, but I actually went to the premier and tried to explain that extending the pipes for Halifax sewage would not be harmful if you put it far enough off so we're not going to get E. coli on the beaches. There's a myth that the whole coastal zone is nutrient overloaded from pollution. It's not true, or we would have barnacles at Peggy's Cove.

The Chair: Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley: That's very interesting. I'm intrigued. I tried to find your website and I think I've finally found it—www.fisherycrisis.com/seaweed.

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie: That's one, yes. I left seaweed out of it, but I could go on.

Mr. Reed Elley: We need to have some time to take a look at your website, obviously, because there's a lot of information there that could help us out on this.

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie: It's loaded.

Mr. Reed Elley: I'm very intrigued about you as a person. You call yourself an interested observer. What kind of background do you bring to the table today, educational, whatever?

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie: I'm a nurse. I have a nursing degree from—

Mr. Reed Elley: So is my wife; they're wonderful people.

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie: I ducked out of engineering school after that. I've worked mostly at nursing, but I've done little bits of commercial fishing, commercial moss raking. I've lived with fishermen. I was Ashton Spinney's next door neighbour for 10 years.

I'm terribly concerned and intrigued with this. I've spent the last five years doing nothing but this research. Check out my website.

Mr. Reed Elley: So what you're telling us, Debbie, is that you're not a PhD in marine biology.

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie: No, no. Do I have to be?

Mr. Reed Elley: Well, you see, I'm asking these questions because maybe that's why you're not getting anywhere with the scientists in DFO. Honestly, there is intellectual snobbery in every profession, and if you don't have the titles behind your name, you don't get through the door.

That's too bad, because it's the fishers on the ocean who are the eyes and ears. We know that. DFO doesn't know that.

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie: Right, and they're the guys who come and drop the fish off and show them to me.

Mr. Reed Elley: That may be why you're not getting as far with this as you would like to. If people like us, on this committee, could have access to everything you have, it would maybe help us along.

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie: Well, it's an extremely serious problem, and as I say, it defies the current models. It challenges the basis of what fisheries science is built on. I think they just want to look the other way. It all ties together when you see that the plankton is weakened already.

Mr. Reed Elley: I really appreciate what you're telling us. Again, I don't have this background either, but it looks like common sense.

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie: Heaven forbid.

Mr. Reed Elley: Yes, exactly.

As an observer on the scene for 40 some-odd years, you have an instinct that there's something wrong here, and this is probably what it is. So I appreciate your coming in and I'm glad we've had the time to hear you.

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie: Okay, thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You say that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has not studied plankton and in your bibliography you mention two studies that I am for the first time hearing about. The first one comes from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and is entitled “Status of Phytoplankton, Zooplankton and Krill on the Nova Scotian Shelf in 1998”, and the second one is the same except that it is for the waters off Newfoundland. Perhaps I did not hear you correctly or misunderstood, but in your bibliography you mention two studies from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and you are telling us that the Department is not interested in this issue. I am having a bit of a difficulty here.

À (1035)

[English]

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie: Right. Okay.

DFO does have the data. The longest stuff they have is called the continuous plankton recorder. They hook this recording device on the commercial vessels leaving Halifax, Louisbourg, and St. John's. It started around 1960—1961 in Nova Scotia and 1959, I think, in Newfoundland. This is a recording tape on which they've collected the data on how green is it—how much the plant fraction is—and how many little animals have been caught up in the tape, the zooplankton.

Now, they've reported the trends, but my complaint is they haven't analyzed the trends. They haven't inquired as to why the green fraction is rising and the animal fraction is falling. This is blatantly wrong according to the model of how marine production works.

You can check those documents. Actually, I have one here. They don't analyze why, and at the end of the document it says “For more information, contact...” and it gives the names to contact. I tried it, and I was asked to refrain from sending further e-mails.

[Translation]

M. Jean-Yves Roy: What you are telling us, very simply, is that the Department gathers data but does not analyze it. In fact, we have the data. All that would be required would be an analysis of the data to determine the causes of the variations and the reasons why things are evolving as they are. This is more or less what you are telling us, and the request you are making of Fisheries and Oceans Canada is precisely that it analyze the data it has gathered over the years. Is that it?

[English]

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie: Yes, thank you, that's what I want. And I want to have this explained before we start removing seals.

The Chair: Are you aware of any other research elsewhere in the world on the subject matter of zooplankton?

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie: Yes, there have been disturbing drops elsewhere in the world. Off California there's been like a 70% drop. They've been recording since about the fifties. There have been indications from the Bering Sea that the whales who feed on plankton there, the bowhead, have had a declining food availability for decades. This is a record in their baleen. It's a widespread thing.

There was a British—I think it was Southhampton University—north Atlantic plankton survey done last winter. I didn't see the final report, but the initial one was that they were very perplexed that they were finding one-tenth of what they expected for zooplankton. This was going across from Greenland over to their... It's a disturbing widespread trend.

The Chair: Can you do us a favour and cite for us in an e-mail the research that has been done in the universities and things like that? I don't mean today, but could you just send us that information so we can reference it?

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie: Okay.

The Chair: Thank you.

Thank you, colleagues.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say she reminds me exactly of Alex Morton down in Broughton Archipelago, without a PhD but doing all the study on aquaculture; and of a gentleman down in Walton, off the coast of Nova Scotia, without any formal academic concerns at all, who brought up the issue of all the coral that everyone denied was there. Now DFO, of course, because of this person's interest—just like yours—is taking an active interest in coral off the coast of Nova Scotia.

So it amazes me that people, without the academic credentials but very interested and concerned about their natural environment, are raising these issues because of their concern for aquatic life in our oceans. I'm just amazed and I want to thank you for that.

The Chair: And of course, that's exactly how science and biology started, with people who were interested.

Ms. Debbie MacKenzie: I maybe should have said, really quickly, that my father, who is now 84, spent his whole career working for DFO. Now, he was the kind who wanted to check for mercury in swordfish in those days.

He told me one day, when we were talking about the fish, “You know what's wrong? The fish are starving.” I said, “You think so?” “Yeah”, he said, “I really think so.” I said “Well, don't we need to tell somebody?” He said, “Nobody will listen.”

The Chair: Well, you did.

Thank you very much, witnesses, for your testimony. We do appreciate it. I'm glad we were able to get you to give us your testimony here.

Now we have, from the Partnership for Sustainable Development of Digby Neck and Islands Society, Carol Mahtab, secretary, and Ashraf Mahtab, chair, with Mark Dittrick, who is going to stay on with us, as advisor.

Now this is another group we're lucky enough to be able to fit in, if I could put it that way. You have 25 minutes in total, which should be long enough for us to explore the issue.

Who would like to begin?

À (1040)

Mrs. Carol Mahtab (Secretary, Partnership for Sustainable Development of Digby Neck and Islands Society): Mr. Chair, I'm Carol Mahtab. This is my husband, Ashraf Mahtab. We are the threatened community.

A year ago I knew nothing about this. I appreciate this very much. We've never done this before. We were pushed into this a year ago because of the threat to our community. We are here representing our chair, a lobsterman who is fishing his lobster today off Whites Cove, where this quarry is supposed to go, and the marine terminal.

I appreciate this very much, being able to present at the last minute. My husband will continue.

Mr. Ashraf Mahtab (Chair, Legal Committee, Partnership for Sustainable Development of Digby Neck and Islands Society): I'm only the chair of the legal committee, not the chair of the society, by the way.

There has been an application filed for a marine terminal at Whites Cove near Little River down Digby Neck. This marine terminal is an integral part of a 380-acre basalt quarry. The process now involves a collective review by the Nova Scotia and federal governments. The Department of Fisheries is the responsible authority.

There are several issues involved in the project. One of them is blasting. There are guidelines in the DFO Act that say you cannot blast within 500 metres of the mammals. There are dangers to the gall bladders of fish, and the string bladders of fish, and there are effects of blasting on the migratory and behavioural patterns of herring, haddock, pollock, and cod. All of these things are detrimental to the local economy, which is fundamentally and largely based on fisheries.

Then there's the danger of siltation and water contamination because of the blasting and grinding of basalt. These siltation effects are cumulative. Over a period of time, they're going to reduce the population of the fisheries—and other species like lobsters, periwinkles, sea urchins—and nobody has really done any socio-economic study to find out what will be the cumulative effect on the economy of the Digby Neck.

The other problem is with this marine terminal, which is going to jut out about 200 metres from Whites Point, affecting the navigation of the small boats, which now frequent the area. The fishermen, the lobstermen, the tourists during the summer—all of these small boats will have a hard time negotiating, and there are tremendous risks involved with the presence of this terminal.

One extremely major concern is the contamination caused by the ballast water that is going to be brought in by these large, 700-foot-long ships coming from the New Jersey, New York area. They are going to bring in this ballast water with all kinds of toxic organisms, some of which have not even been identified. These are so dangerous. The example in the Long Island seashore is that the number of licensed fishermen was reduced from 1,100 to 100 in four years. This is only one of the examples.

These are the major concerns, but mostly it's what is going to happen is in this narrow, frail peninsula, where the predominant activity is that of fishermen. This is going to be all finished in a number of years.

So we are suggesting that the committee please look at all these issues and make sure that the Department of Fisheries, which is going to be the directing authority for all these decisions, will take this all into account.

Thank you.

À (1045)

The Chair: Would you like to add something?

Mr. Mark Dittrick: Yes. You had asked the previous speaker about their credentials. We're dealing with a very large-aggregate mining situation here, and I would like Ashraf Mahtab to describe his credentials.

Mr. Ashraf Mahtab: Basically I started out as a mining engineer and then I took a degree in civil engineering. I have taught mining at Columbia University for about eight years. I'm now semi-retired.

My background is compatible with the statements I can make about quarrying and blasting and other effects of mining, one of which is the contamination of water. When you grind the basalt before you ship it, you have to wash it; and when you blast the basalt, the water is going to percolate through and it's going to collect heavy metals, and the water is going to be contaminated. Either it goes into the watershed of the neighbouring houses, or it goes into the sea. In either case, it's contaminated water, which is going to have destructive effects on the marine life.

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll start the questioning with Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you ever so much, Mr. Chairman.

We asked these questions to the fisheries minister the last time he appeared before the committee. He had indicated to us correctly that it is the province itself that is pushing the issue of the quarry and the possible exploration. They say no environmental assessment is required because they're only going to apply for 3.9 hectares, which gets them right under the radar screen. How this company ever figured that out without inside government knowledge, I don't know.

Gordon Balser was the minister at that time. He is now your MLA. We know what Mr. Thibault's comments are on this. He's received an application and he has to follow the procedures, and I can agree with that. But the fact is that this is being pushed mostly by the province. Your MLA is Mr. Balser, and I would like to know what his comments were to your organization in regard to this. The fishing activity in his area plays a large role in the economic opportunities for people there. It would be interesting to know what the province said in application to this quarry.

Mr. Ashraf Mahtab: How many minutes do we have?

The Chair: You have 16 minutes.

Mr. Ashraf Mahtab: Okay. If I may, I would like to go back to April 30, 2002, when the neighbours—

The Chair: Sorry, you have 16 minutes in total and there may be other questions.

Mr. Ashraf Mahtab: All right.

Initially, the 3.9 hectares bypassed the environmental assessment rule, but everybody in the Nova Scotia government—now we know from various instances—knew this was never going to be a small operation. In fact, in June and July, the quarry people, the proponents, met with the Nova Scotia government and the federal government. Some suggestions must have been made. But this fact is mentioned in the application for the marine terminal, which was filed in March.

Whenever we have spoken with the Nova Scotia government, including Mr. Balser, we have been told that rules have to be followed. However, the rules have always stated that DFO has to give the permit for blasting, and the blasting permit was never given.

The proponent also filed for a marine terminal early on and the application was rejected. Since it was always a mega quarry... now they have come out in the open and have started the marine terminal, and they have declared that this is going to be a 380-acre quarry.

À (1050)

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Just to give the committee the opportunity... this is a very narrow strip of land we are talking about. It has grave consequences for not only the way of life of the people but also the ecological concerns of that entire area. We knew from the beginning that there was no way, Mr. Chairman, that this company only wanted 3.9 hectares. There are approximately 600 hectares of land that they had their eyes on.

What is really sad about this, coming from Nova Scotia, is that we as a province will not get one penny of royalty from this basalt because all of it will be shipped to the United States for use in asphalt on their roads. It's beyond me why we would take the opportunity to destroy the livelihood of communities down there, plus the fishing area, plus the environment, so we can give away another resource to an offshore country. It just boggles the mind.

I'd like your opinion. What are the people down there saying?

Mrs. Carol Mahtab: May I say something? I don't have a degree. I'm an artist; I paint. I was dragged into this kicking and screaming because of the threat to the whole peaceful little community we have.

We have people who are fishermen--a very good lobster fishery--from Westport to Centreville, and you all have the maps. It is $10 million; 40 boats are lobstering right off...that would be directly affected by the beds.... I'm not a fisherman, by any means; this is on-the-job training for me.

The kelp is not harvested from here; the seaweed is left here. So this is the nursery for the lobsters, where the lobsters lay their eggs and the young ones grow and they are protected until they go out. It is a very thriving industry.

You are now hearing about a crisis in the various fisheries around Atlantic Canada. This is not in crisis yet. Please help. Leave it alone.

That's what we are here for. The community is growing. There is ecotourism. There is whale watching out on Bar Island, and actually up and down the neck now. The whales are going to be affected. The whole ecosystem of the Bay of Fundy is going to be affected. It needs help; it needs assistance. But it's healthy. It shouldn't go into crisis too, along with every other area, it seems.

This is land-based...I know it's not regarding the Bay of Fundy, but it is based in the Bay of Fundy. The Americans do come up and they are thrilled by going out to see the whales. Europeans come over. It's just a nice, quiet, happy, positive, little community based on the fishery. Why add more insult to injury by harming another area of Atlantic Canada?

The Chair: Mr. Dittrick.

Mr. Mark Dittrick: I've been doing environmental work for quite a long time. I've never seen an environmental issue with this many different negative aspects to it. This project, this proposed quarry, is a no-brainer: it should be stopped.

One issue, and Carol just referred to it, is the plight of the northern right whale. Recently shipping lanes were moved in order to help out the right whale, to make it less likely that a ship will strike a right whale who has moved down southeast of Grand Manan. The proponent uses this shift in the shipping lanes as an indication that there is no problem with where it has shifted toward the quarry area, that this is an indication that there is no problem with striking right whales in the vicinity of this area. This is simply not true. Shifting those shipping lanes has incrementally decreased the possibility that a right whale will be hit. Adding 40 to 50 45,000-tonne bulk carriers into those shipping lanes essentially wipes out the positive effect of shifting those shipping lanes.

Another quarry in New Brunswick, which is almost the mirror image of this quarry, was just rejected by the environment minister of New Brunswick. That would have added another 40 to 50 similar-sized ships into those shipping lanes. Thank goodness that one was stopped.

The provincial Government of Nova Scotia has stated time and time again that they don't have the power to stop this quarry, even though they do. They do.

À (1055)

The Chair: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I wonder if I could ask all of you the following question. Let us assume, for the purpose of our hearings, that there are no redeeming features whatsoever to this project. That is not to say there aren't, but let's assume that for the moment. What is the federal connection? We heard Mr. Stoffer say this is primarily an environmental matter provincially. We heard Mr. Mahtab say that DFO has to give the permit for blasting. So there's the federal connection. If DFO has to give the permit for blasting, then they have to take a look at all of the factors that influence the fish.

What other federal aspect is there to this? There is nothing we can really do in terms of our committee except make recommendations to the department and to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. So could you narrow it down to what it is you're hoping this committee could recommend vis-à-vis federal fisheries jurisdiction, other than the blasting, which you told us about?

Mr. Ashraf Mahtab: Giving the licence for the terminal comes under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and that's federal. Any damage to the water courses on land as a result of this quarry is also federal--all water courses, all water bodies, are federal.

The Chair: Are the shipping lanes Transport Canada?

Mr. Mark Dittrick: Transport Canada was one of the parties in the decision to shift the shipping lanes.

The Chair: I'm just trying to focus our attention on federal—

Mr. Mark Dittrick: But I think DFO was also involved with that.

The Chair: Are there any other connections federally to this project?

Mrs. Carol Mahtab: Well, there would be the fishery, the scallop fishery, the—

The Chair: There would have to be a determination of whether or not the project would affect the fishery.

Mrs. Carol Mahtab: Yes. There are other damaging effects around the coast of Atlantic Canada—for instance, these lobster beds, the nursery for the whales in the summertime. The whales are out there. They have arrived. We've seen them. You can go down to Whites Cove and see that the whales have returned.

The lobster fishery, the scallop fishery, the herring, haddock, groundfish, pollock—the herring go up to the top of the Bay of Fundy to spawn. It's the fishery that needs to be protected.

I think you're hearing the same thing over and over again: the Department of Fisheries and Oceans needs to protect the fishery.

The Chair: The reason I'm asking this is because quite often we hear, oh well, that's provincial jurisdiction, or if you go to the province, oh well, that's federal jurisdiction. So there's a lot of buck passing on occasion, and I'm trying to narrow it down to what is DFO's responsibility so that we can ask them what their position is on these various issues.

Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley: Just on this point, Mr. Chairman, what you have really asked of DFO is that they initiate an environmental impact study on the fishery to see whether or not this quarry's operations would decimate the fishery. That's what you want us to do, isn't it?

Mrs. Carol Mahtab: Yes.

Mr. Reed Elley: And to advise the minister, on the basis of that, that he should not issue the blasting permit.

Mrs. Carol Mahtab: Or the marine terminal.

Mr. Reed Elley But that's apropos of your particular situation. Those are the things we can do.

Á (1100)

Mrs. Carol Mahtab: On a totally unqualified basis, when I hear DFO come out about protecting the 200-mile limit...why aren't they protecting the Bay of Fundy, for goodness' sake? It's totally Canadian water.

We did have Polish ships coming up into St. Marys Bay. I can remember seeing them way back when. This is before it dropped so much. If the Bay of Fundy isn't Canadian, then what is?

Mr. Reed Elley: This is a somewhat rhetorical question—

The Chair: Mr. Elley, excuse me, but Mr. Dittrick wanted to add a point.

Mr. Mark Dittrick: A full panel review wouldn't hurt. Right now it's going to be a comprehensive study. That's the level at which the assessment is going to be done. So I think that would be a first step, to insist on a full panel review.

There are so many different aspects. There are so many socio-economic impacts from this. The impact on the fishery, I believe, in the Digby bog, which is a prime scalloping area—you probably have these numbers. The quota was increased by well over 50%. I think it went from $28 million to something like $43 million for that fishery now. The scallop fishermen in the Digby area are very, very concerned about the potential impact of invasive species on that fishery.

On fish processing, there's a fish plant in Little River that processes not only local fish but fish from Alaska as well. I don't how they do that. They employ 20 individuals. If the water table drops at all and they lose any water, that fish processing plant has said it will pack up and go.

Thirty jobs is what this quarry is all about. It's interesting that the bailiwick federally is Robert Thibault's and the bailiwick provincially is Gordon Balser's—he's the provincial fisheries minister. So we have fisheries ministers all over the place, and here we are potentially destroying fisheries in Nova Scotia.

By the way, that area, Digby Neck, has been cited by the United Nations—we can get you that information too—as an example of sustainable economic development. It's been cited by the United Nations as an area where we have made transitions from some of the more traditional industries. This is based on ecotourism.

People go to Digby Neck to watch the whales, not to watch whales get killed by ship impacts. One whale struck and killed because of the extra shipping in those shipping lanes and you can kiss whale watching in Digby Neck goodbye.

If you want statistics on the value of that industry, the Tourism Industry Association of Nova Scotia can provide it.

Mr. Reed Elley: People come and tell us about the huge environmental concerns for something like this. It all makes common sense. It shouldn't go ahead, on the basis of what we hear from people like you. Mr. Stoffer tells us the provincial government is driving this. Why is the provincial government driving this? What does the province get out of this in the face of all of this? That's mind boggling.

Mr. Ashraf Mahtab: This has always been our question. There is absolutely no return; there is no royalty on stone, on non-building stone, which is basalt. There is no royalty. We have always wondered why the provincial government has encouraged the proponent to go ahead, first with the smaller quarry project and now the larger one.

We have seen people coming in and out of Balser's office. Mr. Balser has applications for people to apply for jobs for this quarry. Why are they encouraging it? We have no idea. We don't want to make assumptions.

Mr. Reed Elley: If you can get to the bottom of that, that's your answer.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Stoffer): For the record, Mr. Balser is now the fisheries minister of Nova Scotia.

Mr. Wood has a question.

Mr. Bob Wood: This is obviously the first time someone wants to be part of this project.

I guess my question is what kind of timelines are we looking at here? When do they plan on doing all of this? Have they started it already? If we want to try to do something once they get into operations, how much time do we have? Hopefully it's not a fait accompli, but what is the time limit?

Á (1105)

Mr. Ashraf Mahtab: They simply filed the application for the marine terminal—I believe in March. We are told that it's going to take six to nine months to process, including filing the environmental assessment document, examining everything, and allowing all of the departments to get together. It will at least take a period of six months from March, so we're looking towards the end of the year.

However, if some permissions are granted before then, it may be too late, because there is NAFTA, which can kick in also. If you deny a proponent his rights to do the business and you then take an excuse six months later, then they can come and sue you. So both the federal and the provincial government will be responsible—yet we are the people who are going to pay the money or the cost.

Mrs. Carol Mahtab: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is the responsible authority for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency process underway now.

Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you.

The Chair: Monsieur Roy.

[Translation]

M. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just have one simple question because I missed the early part of your presentation. Has any environmental assessment been done, especially with regards to the erosion of the shoreline? If these ships are very large, they will have a very big impact on the shoreline because they create a big wake. It is an issue that we see in many areas.

So I would like to know if an environmental assessment has been done, especially with regards to the erosion of the shoreline.

[English]

Mr. Ashraf Mahtab: They started first below the 3.9-hectare limit, which does not require any environmental assessment. Now that they have filed for the marine terminal, which they have admitted is part of the 380-acre quarry, the environmental assessment requirement kicks in. They are in the process of collecting data and are combining all those various applications together. So the process has to start now, and the assessment document has to be filed for that size of quarry.

The questions of siltation and erosion are both very important questions. They will have to be asked at the time of scoping and the comprehensive study—and if you go to a panel review, also at that time, of course.

Thank you for your comment.

The Chair: Thank you so very much for your presentation.

Mrs. Carol Mahtab: Thank you.

Mr. Ashraf Mahtab: Thank you.

The Chair: Our last witness is Mr. MacDonell.

Welcome, sir. We are looking forward to hearing what you have to say.

Mr. John MacDonell (Fisheries Critic, New Democratic Party, Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia): Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate an opportunity to come to speak to your committee, and I certainly look for any opportunity to speak to anybody who is willing to listen. I'm hoping that some of the comments you have heard today from the other presenters and from me will have an impact on decisions made by this committee, and certainly on decisions made by the minister and his department.

Mr. Chair, my name is John MacDonell and I'm the MLA for Hants East in Nova Scotia. I am the New Democratic Party fisheries critic.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. These are turbulent times in the fishery, with the violence in Shippagan, New Brunswick; the boycott of the fishery by snow crab fishers, because of reduced quotas; and the closure of the cod fishery in Newfoundland. If ever there was a time for Ottawa to hear what it's been doing with its fisheries policies, it's now.

In essence, DFO has to stop hurting local economies with its top-down privatization approach to managing the fisheries. Perhaps the best example of what I mean has been given by Graeme Gawn of the Maritime Fishermen's Union. Mr. Gawn has lived and fished in Digby County for many years. When he started, Digby County had a large fleet of independently owned and operated fishing vessels, including offshore and inshore scallopers, purse seiners, fish draggers, and a viable inshore fleet of multi-species lobster, and fixed gear, groundfish and herring vessels.

Then DFO introduced individual transferrable quotas. Whether they are ITQs or enterprise allocations, the larger vessels in each fleet sector soon came under privatization plans. DFO and fish buyers wanted this. In 1983, DFO introduced ITQs for seiners. The robust herring net fishery for hundreds of inshore boats was impacted hard by this. DFO did not monitor the total allowable catches, and seiners were soon flooding the market with cheap herring.

Gawn says that it was normal for a seiner to land double his quota and to get paid for half. The netters couldn't compete; they needed to be paid for every pound they landed, so they were forced out of the market and the herring stocks were decimated. DFO's aim was to reduce overcapacity. It did reduce the number of boats in the fishery, but it totally ignored purse seine vessels being replaced by vessels with two to three times the cost and catch capacity. That was allowed because DFO didn't care what kind of vessels they used to harvest their own individual quotas.

Today, there's something like 40 boats in the seiner fleet, with three times the capacity of the 52 they replaced. Trinity Ledge, the home of the herring, is barren now. I agree with Gawn when he argues that were it not for the ITQ system and the lack of enforcement for a decade, many of those seiners would have gone out of business. In the rush to bring bigger vessels into these offshore waters, no one took a good hard look at the consequences of the ages-old, and mostly sustainable, inshore fisheries.

However, when depressed markets and high interest rates threatened the survival of the offshore effort in the early eighties, we followed the usual Canadian way to deal with this crisis. We appointed a royal commission.

The Kirby task force report recommended that trawler fleets be expanded, virtually ignoring any support for the inshore effort. Ottawa and the big fish companies saw a bonanza. So the full-scale corporatization of the fisheries began with the infusion of public dollars. This restructuring of the industry created two giants, National Sea and Fishery Products International, and now Highliner has been bought out by Clearwater, which now controls 50% of the scallop industry.

So now we have seen the result: high-grading of catches, with less commercially valuable species tossed overboard, and the decimation of many stocks, which should have been painfully obvious.

Cod is now an endangered species in Newfoundland, and Newfoundland, dependent on the cod for centuries, is devastated. Corporate concentration in the fisheries is at an all-time high, and communities like Canso here in Nova Scotia, perhaps the oldest fishing community in North America, have nothing. We should have foreseen the Digbys and the Cansos and the devastated coastal communities of Newfoundland, but we didn't.

In my view, we have to get away from this notion of giving a select few private rights in our fisheries. This common resource should be used to the advantage of the greatest number of people, and the use of ITQs is not accomplishing that end.

Iceland warned us that ITQs would make a common resource a private resource. Arthur Bogason, chairman of the Icelandic National Association of Small Boat Owners, says the introduction of ITQs in the fisheries resulted in increased unemployment and fewer fisheries jobs. ITQs came in in 1991. Before that there were 1,043 small boats fishing. In the next three and a half years, large corporations bought up 700 of those boats and transferred the quotas to large trawlers. One Icelandic village cheered when a shiny new freezer trawler arrived in its harbour; 70 jobs disappeared in the community when the local fish processing plant closed. The freezer trawler took its place. Does this sound hauntingly familiar?

Moreover, Bogason argues that ITQs can't be economically efficient if they are being gobbled up by large interests. Icelandic studies have shown that the greatest profits from fishing can be realized by small boats. They create three times as many jobs as trawlers, fuel costs are less, and the highest-quality, highest-priced fish are caught by small boats. An Icelandic study also concluded that it costs about $30 million for a freezer trawler for a crew of 30, but 30 small boats with a crew of one person each would only cost about $8.4 million.

Another critic of ITQs is Parcival Copes of the Institute of Fisheries Analysis at Simon Fraser University. He says ITQs have made the fisheries more profitable for a few people, but their negative impact on the communities and fish habitats greatly outweigh these benefits. He says ITQs encourage fishers to dump fish caught as a bycatch or of poor quality and size. They encourage quota busting and poaching and racketing of quotas. There are better alternatives.

One such alternative, which we support wholeheartedly, is community management or community-based co-management. This allows fishers and others in a geographic area to set quotas and manage the fishery for themselves. We have successful examples of this here in Nova Scotia. The Fundy Fixed Gear Council, chaired by Arthur Bull, established a community management system along the Fundy coast. It represents 230 fishers who work together to manage their own inshore fishery. It favours small independent fishers over private interest and allows the fishery resource to remain publicly held rather than giving certain individuals private rights to harvest fish.

Sambro Fisheries is another example of a community-based management system. There, 65 boats signed on to be part of a community management system. DFO allocated the group a quota, and the group developed a management plan and administers and enforces it. Sam Ellsworth helped to pioneer the project, and Donny Hart now stands in Sam's big shoes. Sambro Fishery processes 65% to 70% of the fish caught, but also ships unprocessed fish to markets such as Boston when the price is right. The key is flexibility and self-management. I wish them continued success in their efforts.

I know, however, that some communities are not sold on the merits of community-based co-management. The south shore of Nova Scotia seems to be an area where the idea has not caught on. So if ITQs are to be used in such areas, I have a suggestion to stop ITQs being gobbled up by the big fish companies. Fisheries loan boards traditionally provide access to capital for fishers to purchase boats. Why couldn't the role of the fisheries loan board be broadened to provide funding for fishers to purchase ITQs? If access were restricted to small independent fishers or those new to the industry, this could stop corporate concentration and bring fresh blood into a greying fisheries population. It would also ensure the continued existence of our coastal communities built up over the centuries by fisheries. Provinces like Nova Scotia would find it difficult to provide such funding, but federal funding for such an initiative could be administered by the existing loan boards, avoiding the need to create another bureaucracy to administer the program.

I'd like to touch on a few other topics, but only briefly, for the committee's edification.

I'm appalled at the decision by the federal fisheries minister to close the cod fishery in Newfoundland. Newfoundland was built on the cod fishery and its continued existence depends on that fishery.

Newfoundland is not convinced that the closure was based on the best science available. The Newfoundland all-party committee recommended that the fishery remain open and properly managed stocks could rebound over time. The recommendations fell on deaf ears and now Newfoundland's coastal communities are withering away. The minister needs to revisit that decision. Actually, I want to emphasize that we would like to see that decision based on sound science and we're not entirely convinced that it's what happened here.

As the committee knows, aquaculture is a growing industry worldwide. Nova Scotia has approximately 370 leases and 200 active aquaculture sites, but communities that house them are concerned about the safety and sustainability of these operations.

Concerns in British Columbia reached the point where a moratorium, which has only recently been lifted, was placed on the industry. Fishers fear that the waste from these sites is destroying lobster grounds and will harm other fin fish species.

These farmed fish often escape, and some biologists suggest that interbreeding with the native species may in fact destroy the native stocks. An operation in Prince Edward Island is experimenting with genetically modified fish. They are producing salmon that grow at three times the rate of the native species. That operation is land based because the fear is that if these modified fish escape into the wild they would destroy the native species in the matter of a few generations.

The science is not clear on this issue, so I think this is the time to invoke the cautionary principle. Although much of the jurisdiction for aquaculture is provincial, DFO still has a responsibility to protect fish stocks. I think it's time that DFO looked at requiring that aquaculture be done in closed containment systems in order to protect native species and fish habitat.

I want to say I don't see the value in risking fisheries that are healthy, that are sustainable, and have supported communities by introducing aquaculture in areas that may affect the habitat. I think in particular of the lobster fishery. If we were to price what it would take to grow lobster in an aquaculture setting that nature has provided, I think we would say that the benefit outweighs the gain in risking losing that by aquaculture sites.

Seismic testing for offshore oil and gas. The NDP joins the fishers in Cape Breton in their opposition to offshore seismic testing by the oil and gas industry. The effect of seismic testing on fragile fish habitats has never been fully explored. Before any such testing is allowed, a full environmental review that conclusively shows that no harm will result to our fisheries is required.

Seismic activity brings me to the controversial proposal for a basalt quarry in Digby Neck. This area has a thriving fishing industry and a growing ecotourism sector. It's also one of the last bastions for the right whale.

The province has approved a 3.9-hectare quarry, but federal approvals are also needed for the pier, at which the company intends to berth large-aggregate carriers. More shipping in the Bay of Fundy is not what the right whale needs at this time, nor do fishers need large ships traversing their traditional fishing grounds.

The company has made no secret of the fact that it intends to create a 300-hectare quarry and ship the aggregates to the eastern seaboard of the United States. This will create perhaps 30 jobs, but the near shore blasting could have undetermined effects upon the fishing habitat.

Why endanger our traditional industries for the sake of a few finite jobs? Quarries come and go, but the fishery remains the backbone of these communities. I'm asking that DFO ensure that the full environmental assessments of the effects of this operation be done before one tonne of aggregate comes out of the ground in Digby Neck.

I've been told that the citizens' group from Digby Neck that opposes this quarry have not been allowed to appear before this committee.

A voice: They have.

Mr. John MacDonell: They have. Thank you. I take one piece of information away today. That's great.

They have legitimate concerns about what this operation will do to the fisheries and ecotourism and whale watching.

So I want to thank the committee that they were allowed to present, and I hope that their concerns will reach higher ears. I want to thank the committee for allowing me to make this presentation and I welcome any questions that you might have for me.

Á (1115)

The Chair: Thank you very much, sir.

We'll call on Mr. Elley, if he has any questions.

Mr. Reed Elley: Again, Mr. MacDonell, we hear the same concerns on the west coast. We share the same concerns.

What often concerns me—and you're a provincial politician and I'm sure you're well aware of this—is that what looks like it might be good from a provincial standpoint often isn't good from a federal standpoint in terms of the overall picture.

I wonder if you have any advice for us as to how we can help that discussion to take place between provincial and federal governments so that the big picture is taken into account and not this sort of myopic vision that often takes place at the provincial level? I'm not trying to criticize the provincial people, but I think you know what I'm saying.

Á (1120)

Mr. John MacDonell: I think I know what you're saying.

The first point I want to make is that whether people appear here from a municipality, representing a province, or representing the country, we're all Canadians. So in the big picture, it doesn't really matter where you draw the lines on the map or what jurisdictions the federal government hands down to the provinces or to the municipalities. In the final analysis, we're all Canadians. The resources of this country, I think, should be shared among the people of this country.

I think if you can take a message back it should be that the concerns of the people in these coastal communities in particular are genuine. They're not looking for a fight; they're looking for access to resources that would help them fulfil their dreams, and their families' dreams, and send their children to university or whatever. This is what they want to do. We all have different desires and wants, and as far as I know, we're all making this trip once, so there's no coming back to redo it.

So for those people anywhere in this country, for any committee who's listening to them, we should recognize that we're all Canadians first, and this is the message that I think should be sold to the federal government, so that when they make decisions, they think about the impacts on the people first and craft their policy around what those impacts are going to be and how they can best benefit the most people, not the fewest. If the federal would take that into consideration, I think it probably would come out ahead.

The other thing I would say is that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Elley.

Monsieur Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Mr. Elley just said that the federal government sometimes causes lots of problems to provincial governments. I for one would say that it causes problems all the time but let us not go there. I do not want to get into partisan politics this morning.

You raise an issue that other witnesses have mentioned also and which is of interest to me because we have the same problem with gas exploration in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. We have presently the same problem because no environmental assessment has been done but there may be gas exploration going on nevertheless.

I know that the Committee on Fisheries and Oceans looked into that whole issue a year or two ago and in one of its reports stated that there should be environmental assessments and an assurance that there would be no impact on resources before undertaking these tests.

You did not really state your position, you just mentioned the issue. I would like to ask you to elaborate because I am not as well informed as to what happens around here than at home. I believe there has been a moratorium at one point but I am not sure whether it has been lifted and exploration might have resumed. Could you tell us where things stand at the present time?

[English]

Mr. John MacDonell: To my knowledge, there is no set moratorium, but certainly the area around Cape Breton is being studied. There may not be a lot of seismic work being done there yet, but there's nothing to stop that. Our concern is that it will go ahead without a full environmental assessment that actually looks at what the long-term impacts on the fishery would be, and there doesn't seem to be any movement in that direction.

Á (1125)

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: So you are saying that some seismic tests are taking place without any authorization from Fisheries and Oceans, in other words without any environmental assessment?

[English]

Mr. John MacDonell: I can't say for sure that there is seismic testing going on. All I can say is right now there's nothing to indicate that the environmental work is even planned to be done to prevent it from going on. So that's the concern we have, that it could still happen without the environmental work.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Indeed, when the ocean is involved, the environmental assessment has to be imposed by Fisheries and Oceans and not the province.

[English]

Mr. John MacDonell: As I understand it, that's the case.

[Translation]

M. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Merci, monsieur Roy.

Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood: I have a couple of questions.

Mr. MacDonell, we heard earlier this morning from Arthur Bull, and I noticed that you had a couple of paragraphs dealing with his community management system along the Fundy coast, which he represents.

You also say the south shore of Nova Scotia seems to be an area where the idea has not caught on. Why is that? It seems like a logical thing to do, to co-manage your fishery.

Mr. John MacDonell: I don't know why, actually. It strikes me that this is an approach that any community would want to take. It may deal more with the independence of the fishers in that area than anything else, but I don't have an answer for that. I wish I knew, and I wish I had more information around a recommendation that would help the people in that area.

I know one of the concerns they raised is the access to funding, as far as buying licences is concerned. They can buy the boats, but they can't get the money for the licence through the fisheries loan board. They don't seem to want to go in the direction of co-management, and it may be that presently they feel that they're getting the price they want for what they're catching and they're content with that.

Mr. Bob Wood: As the fisheries critic for the NDP, do you have a lot of contact with the Maritime Fishermen's Union?

Mr. John MacDonell: I don't have a lot of contact. Actually, I think most of the fisheries organizations—and I've dealt with only a couple—go to our federal counterparts more than they come to the province, simply because of the jurisdictional issue of when the fish hit the dock, compared to what has happened in the ocean as far as quotas, allocations, and so on, are concerned.

Mr. Bob Wood: They were supposed to be here this morning, and for some reason they couldn't make it. So I was just trying to get some feedback on that.

Mr. John MacDonell: No, I don't have a comment there.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wood.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, thank you.

John, thank you very much. I know it's a busy time for you with lambing season going on, so it's nice that you can get out of the farm and to us to explain the fishery concern.

But, sir, last year the province was actually going to institute a policy of reducing the number of lobster buyers in the province by forcing them to have a large increase of capacity for that holding. I believe right now a lobster buyer just needs a minimum—correct me if I'm wrong—of around 5,000 kilograms, and they were going to increase that to 12,500. That has been put on hold, from my understanding, because of the uproar by the lobster buyers.

But this goes to the heart of what I was saying earlier about an ITQ on lobster. If you can't get the lobster fishermen the ITQ, then what you do is reduce the number of buyers for lobster by forcing them to have a certain capacity—which was nonsense in the eyes of the small lobster buyers, which provided the competition for the price, and that has been put on hold.

I wonder if you could very briefly explain more or less how that all happened, and is there any talk about revisiting those types of decisions in the future?

Mr. John MacDonell: There hasn't been any indication to us that the government is planning to move anymore on this.

Á (1130)

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's the provincial government, by the way.

Mr. John MacDonell: Yes, the provincial government.

Actually, I don't think it was ever made clear to us, but it certainly looked as though those who wanted more access to lobster, those larger players, had tried to convince the government that this would be a more proper way to do this and that it would better serve the customer. But what we saw was that it would fall into fewer and fewer hands, and these small operators would actually be driven out of business because of the expense of expanding their operation for their holding facilities. So we'd have reduced competition. Therefore, the customer wouldn't really get as good a deal, because competition would improve the price.

We thought because the smaller operations could hold fewer lobster, their turnover of lobster was greater. Therefore, not only would they get a better price as far as the customer was concerned, but they would get a better lobster.

There's nothing we've seen in the last month that indicates that the province plans to move on this anymore. I think they've backed away from it. I think they recognize the disadvantage for the people presently in the industry, not to mention the disadvantage for the customers.

The Chair: Thank you very much, sir, for your evidence and for coming today.

I thank the committee members. We're actually in good shape today.

I want to remind committee members and the audience, if any of them are staying—and by the way, I thank everybody for coming today—that we'll return at 12:45 to hear from Ransom Myers from Dalhousie University.

We'll also have representatives—we hope—or somebody from the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, since we're talking about seismic testing and things like that.

We'll also be hearing an update on another interesting thing that our committee undertook—that was on dumping of World War II chemical weapons that were in Canada's possession. So we'll be hearing from Myles Kehoe, as well as the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.

Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.