---

INTRODUCTION

Ever since human beings first reached the shores of what is now Prince Edward Island, they have looked to the sea to supply them with an essential part of their means of existence. It is no wonder that the fishery forms such a vital part of the socio-economic fabric of Prince Edward Island, as the Island is surrounded by some of the richest fishing grounds in the world.

The PEI fishery is one of the top three primary industries in terms of contribution to the provincial economy, alongside the agriculture and tourism industries. In 1997, 3,500 people were employed in fishing and processing. The economic ripples of the fishery spread out to include those who manufacture and supply fishing gear and equipment; those who make processing and handling machinery, install and maintain refrigeration and packaging equipment; the truck drivers who haul the product to market; and those who supply and sell gasoline and fuel to power the fishing boats. The incomes earned by all of these people in turn help other businesses, and sectors.

As part of its commitment to meet with stakeholders in all parts of Canada, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans held public hearings in Stanley Bridge, P.E.I. on Monday April 27, 1998 to hear directly the views of the fishing industry, members of the community, and representatives of the provincial government on the subject of fisheries management.

The Committee listened to a broad range of issues including aquaculture, shellfish leasing, the Aboriginal Fishing Strategy, enforcement, cost-recovery, management decisions, access to quotas and habitat.

This report represents the views expressed to the Committee by witnesses, with a series of recommendations developed by Committee members that flow from the testimony.

Aquaculture

Jurisdiction

Prince Edward Island is unique in that it is the only province where the federal government is responsible for issuing leases for the cultivation and development of oysters, mussels and other mollusks. Through a February 27, 1928 agreement between the federal and provincial governments, it was agreed that the federal government would be responsible for the control, administration, development and improvement of the oyster or mollusk industry, as well as for conducting surveys and issuing leases.

A September 11, 1987, "Agreement for Commercial Aquaculture Development" between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Province of Prince Edward Island further defined the roles of each government for aquaculture development. Under this agreement, Canada continues to be responsible for issuing leases for mollusks and for scientific research. Canada is also responsible for issuing licences and leases for specified salmonids and finfish, and for their development and improvement.

Both governments are to work co-operatively on programs toward aquaculture development and enhancement, and should jointly undertake zoning of water systems for which licences or leases may be issued, taking into consideration the utilization of the water courses by other user groups.

Hearings

In his presentation, the Director of the Canadian Aquaculture Institute of the Atlantic Veterinary College (AVC) emphasized how important it is for Canada to keep pace with international competition and play a lead role in aquaculture. For example, Chile produces 200-million tonnes of salmon while Canada's West Coast produces only 30-million tonnes of salmon.

He quoted figures from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) which indicate that the worldwide harvest of wild fish for food is expected to level off after the year 2000, while the demand for fish for food will increase. The projected shortfall of 52 million tonnes will have to be made up by aquaculture.

The Atlantic Veterinary College provides valuable research services, and education to assist the aquaculture industry and help in its development. The AVC is also involved in policy development at the provincial and federal levels relating to the aquaculture industry.

Citing the problems with infectious salmon anaemia (ISA) in the New Brunswick salmon farming industry, the Director suggested that Canada should move away from a crisis management approach to the industry, and put in place programs relating to fish health that would allow for proper reaction when problems occur. "Many people at the College have been commenting for some time that the industry in New Brunswick was developing in a manner that was leading towards crisis similar to the one being faced in Norway."

He identified major problems, such as the lack of good health monitoring programs, that could lead to disease prevention and a lack of planning as to how to handle a major disease when it strikes. He also said that there are lessons to learn by studying diseases in other countries like ISA in Norway, and from the management of diseases in other food animals.

A witness from the Aquaculture Alliance stated that the aquaculture industry creates 1500 to 2000 direct and indirect jobs on Prince Edward Island. He estimated that mussel production in Canada is projected to increase three to fourfold in the next few years, and that oyster production in Canada is projected to increase fivefold.

He told the Committee that the industry is still waiting for the government to implement the recommendations of its Task Force on aquaculture, and for the appointment of the Aquaculture Commissioner. The Task Force report included recommendations in areas such as government operations, job creation and economic development, research and development, environmental considerations, cost recovery, budgetary cutbacks, regulations, and, marketing and promotion. The witness quoted from the report: "We recommend that enough has been said, written and discussed. The time to act is now."

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that the federal government appoint a Commissioner of Aquaculture Development without further delay, and that he/she collaborate with the industry and the province to develop enhanced aquaculture.

Shellfish Leasing

The aquaculture industry in P.E.I. is facing a number of obstacles.

DFO's delivery of the Aquaculture Leasing program was identified as a critical issue. The Committee was informed that the old leasing program is no longer working for the following reasons: "there does not appear to be a clear set of policies for government officials to follow when making decisions, the decision making rests in too few hands, and department officials do not appear to be accountable for their decisions." DFO officials have reportedly indicated that budgetary cutbacks are responsible, and have proposed a cost-shared revision to the program.

An industry representative said that this would result in lease fee increases of up to 1200% for mussel producers and up to 600% for oyster producers to help cover the administration of the new program. He also stated that the imposition of these fees will have a direct negative impact on the bottom line of aquaculture operations, which would hinder the development of the industry.

The Alliance representative felt that the government should pay for policy, and that the industry should not have to pay for an inadequate program.

Other witnesses noted how difficult it is to get leasing maps. The Committee was told that the leasing division is in Charlottetown, and that people must travel there to get the maps. Despite the fact that there is reportedly $20,000 worth of equipment to identify open or closed fishing areas, one witness found that there was no one onsite trained to use the AutoCAD computer mapping system. He urged the Department to get qualified personnel onsite who can issue the maps. He explained that he had to call a private surveyor, and pay for the survey out of his own pocket.

The witness went on to point out that there is frequent abuse of lease marking, and that some individuals move markers to suit their own needs, and blame it on others if they get caught. He stated that no one has ever been charged with lease marking. In the past, the witness testified, there were pins on shore which were used as reference points for lease markers, and that now there is no way to properly check corners.

Reference was also made to the potential for conflict between shellfish leasing and the riparian rights of land owners with respect to access to the public waters.

Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans ensure that personnel in the Shellfish Leasing Division in the DFO office in Charlottetown are trained to use the AutoCAD computer mapping system and that qualified personnel are always available during business hours to issue maps of shellfish leases to the public.

Recommendation 3

The Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans undertake a review of the Aquaculture Leasing Program in conjunction with stakeholders and the Province of Prince Edward Island in order to develop a more acceptable method of administering the Program and to improve Program delivery.

Recommendation 4

The Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans devise a better system of monitoring the marking of aquaculture leases and that it lay charges against individuals who abuse the lease marking system. The Committee recommends that the onus should be on the holders of aquaculture leases to ensure that the lease markers are correctly positioned.

Recommendation 5

The Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans conduct public consultations with local residents, industry stakeholders and other users prior to granting aquaculture leases in public waters.

Canadian Coast Guard-Red and Green Buoys

Concerns were raised over DFO's recently announced policy to revise the lease marking system for the mussel culture industry. The changes would require the industry to mark aquaculture leases that border on navigation channels/corridors with the traditional red and green colour markers used for navigational channels. The industry fears that if one of these lease markers should go adrift, and result in a boating accident, the owner of the lease would be held liable. They also worry that DFO will no longer mark navigational channels in harbours once these red and green buoys are deployed. One witness wanted assurances that DFO "is not just downloading its responsibility for marking navigation channels onto the mussel culture industry." The red and green buoys are said to cost between $400 to $500 each to mark, multiplied by the number of buoys on the lease line.

The industry does not object to properly marking lease lines, members simply fear that these red and green markers could be confused with the Coast Guard's navigational markers.

Recommendation 6

The Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans delay its plans to revise the lease marking system for the mussel culture industry until it has consulted with industry to address concerns relating to liability and the colour of the lease line markers that border on navigational channels/corridors.

Quality Management Program (QMP)

Witnesses informed the Committee that the Quality Management Program (QMP) is in need of serious revision, in order to preserve the integrity of the industry, and to prevent possible illness from consumers eating contaminated product.

The QMP requires fish plant operators to implement an in-plant management program that assures the quality of their fish products. Fish plant operators must monitor their plant's performance by keeping records, such as books and landing slips, to ensure their operations and products comply with Canada's standards for quality and safety.

The landing slip must identify the date of harvest, harvest area, harvester's name, quantity of shellfish and type of shellfish. The plant must also record processing dates and shipping destination, so that all molluscan shellfish can be traced from the consumer back to the harvester.

DFO inspectors are responsible for performing regular audits of the plant QMP, and for taking enforcement action ranging from written warnings to plant closure for non-compliance.

Several harvesters who sold shellfish to one plant which is under investigation for non-compliance to the QMP have described how they have been denied the right to access and to verify their own records without written consent by the plant. They claim that the QMP system has been corrupted by improper record-keeping, fraudulent receipts, and no accountability.

Recommendation 7

The Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans devise a system in P.E.I. to record landings and issue landing slips to protect both the buyer and the seller.

Cost-Recovery-User Fees

Many industry representatives expressed frustration over mounting user fees, and fewer services. Witnesses felt that the industry has been hard-hit by cost-recovery, citing a 200% to 300% increase in licence fees. They questioned where the money has been put to use. One witness said that he was puzzled that separate sections of the same bureaucracy are charging fees. The multiple layers of fees charged to the industry include dredging fees, on-board observer fees, rescue fees, bait shed licences, and aquaculture leases.

Some blamed the fees for no longer being able to afford to fish. To illustrate this a witness explained that dockside monitoring costs him 5 cents a pound while the herring he catches is only worth 4 cents a pound. Another witness testified that cost-recovery fees have increased 1000% from zero 10 years ago.

An industry representative referred to a statement by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in November 1997, at the Atlantic Council in Halifax which promised no increases in the fees until a cumulative impact study had been undertaken according to Treasury Board guidelines.

Witnesses expressed scepticism about DFO's concept of "partnership" in managing the resource. They questioned what partnering would cost the industry. One industry representative said: "The concept of partnership is interesting. In the private sector it is usually done when somebody is just about broke. We suggest that this partnership exercise is born of financial need and nurtured by the desire to share bad publicity with fishermen's organizations."

Recommendation 8

The Committee recommends that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans act immediately to fulfil his commitment to complete a thorough and detailed study of the cumulative impact of cost recovery on the fishing industry and coastal communities with a view to scaling back fees should it be determined that they represent an excessive burden on any sector of the fishing industry, community, or region.

Dredging

Witnesses felt it was critical that DFO dredge navigational channels. They explained how sand fills in shallow channels, which then become dangerous to navigate and potentially life threatening. Storms exacerbate this situation. They believe that DFO action was long overdue to dredge the shallow sand bar. Reportedly, time has been wasted on navigational manoeuvring. "A substantial amount of time and money can be lost having to wait for high tide or low wind or having to steam to alternate ports." Several witnesses felt that essential dredging was beyond the means of users, and that DFO's 20% dredging fee was enough to bankrupt most port authorities.

A representative from the P.E.I. Aquaculture Alliance made a request to Environment Canada to develop a streamlined approval process to permit the quick removal of known clean sand from a navigational channel. Despite the problem with long delays for a permit, the representative said a tentative approval for a one-year test at Malpeque Harbour may be granted and possibly be extended after into a five-year pre-approved permit.

Recommendation 9

In the interests of safety, the Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans continue to conduct essential dredging of fishing harbours.

Harbour Authority

After years of neglect and disrepair of wharves and harbours by DFO, witnesses were under the understanding that these would be brought up to "reasonable standard" prior to divestiture to local harbour authorities. One witness described how portions of the wharf in Malpeque are falling down, and how the wiring has been patched for the last 15 years and now needs to be completely replaced. "After being told for 15 years that there was no money available for repairs, DFO is now dumping these under-maintained harbours onto the fishermen's lap."

Another witness explained that P.E.I. has many small ports, and felt that the federal government must maintain some responsibility for the on-going business of routine repairs and for badly needed major repairs. "We must balance the flow of funds, because small ports cannot compete with large harbour authorities".

Recommendation 10

The Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans fulfil its commitment to bring wharves and harbours up to a safe and fully operational standard of repair before divestiture to local harbour authorities.

Enforcement

Witnesses cited several factors contributing to problems with conservation such as poaching, moving lease lines, in-fill of rivers, streams and bays. However, the lack of DFO shore officers was one of the main criticisms the Committee heard.

In the shellfish industry, one group of stakeholders in Bedeque Bay joined forces with Crime Stoppers to combat illegal fishing. When questioned whether there is a lack of enforcement for oysters, one witness replied: "Every day in broad daylight people are violating, and fishing out of season." The witness valued the poaching at roughly $600,000 to $700,000. He testified that DFO drives down to verify reports of poaching, but they do not have the manpower to cover such a wide area, and no charges are laid. The witnesses estimated there are 50 known poachers.

Another witness stated there is a lot of frustration with DFO practices and management style. Referring to the $100-million lobster industry, he felt that DFO protection and enforcement should be the first priority.

Witnesses insisted that the industry could not tolerate DFO cutbacks to enforcement staff. While the industry is becoming self-monitored, fees are increasing.

A witness revealed that there are only 6-7 permanent DFO shore officers in addition to some summer staff to cover 1,300 fishermen. The Committee learned that Summerside has one full-time and two part-time officers; Charlottetown has four full-time and three part-time officers; Montague has one full-time and two part-time officers; and Souris has two part-time officers. This skeleton staff must monitor a number of fisheries, on a year round basis. These fisheries, include: lobster, oyster, scallops, smelts, snow crab, spring eel, commercial bait, herring, mackerel, clams, trout, rock crab, recreational groundfish, and marine mammals.

Another witness observed that officers are only paid for half a year and receive half salary. He stated that from 1988 to 1998 there has been a 33% decrease of full-time officers in P.E.I., and an increase in the number of licensed fishermen.

One suggestion put forward was that poachers should be made the target of cost-recovery: "poachers or thieves must be made to pay dearly for their illegal activities." The witness felt that DFO must impose stiffer fines and penalties, and that vehicle and vessel seizures be stepped up. It was suggested that the revenue from the fines could go towards employing more shore officers.

There was a general agreement that if conservation is a DFO priority, then more resources need to be directed towards enforcement. "I believe that it is contradictory to talk about increasing conservation measures and then shortly after reduce the amount of protection provided."

Recommendation 11

The Committee recommends that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans demonstrate his commitment to conservation by acting immediately to increase the number of fishery officers in Prince Edward Island to a level that will ensure that both the resource and the interests of legitimate licence holders are protected.

Habitat

The Committee heard one witness explain how a permit was issued for a project to clean out the pond above a dam and allow a fish ladder to be built. The conditions of the permit, such as using silt traps to breach the silt, were not met. The dam was breached allowing the stream to wash roughly 700 tandem truckloads of silt into the pond, covering shellfish beds and possibly smothering them. The witness felt that nobody was held accountable for the destruction to fish habitat, and called for an inquiry into the conditions of the provincial permit and into the lack of an environmental assessment.

Another witness told the Committee that resources are needed for shellfish enhancement. P.E.I. has roughly 1,200 oyster licences, and enhancement is required to maintain habitat for the shellfish. Currently, there is a voluntary fee that goes towards the P.E.I. Shellfish Enhancement Fund, but only about 100 fishermen contribute annually. One witness suggested that this contribution become mandatory similar to British Columbia where a donation is required at the point of purchase of a licence.

Lobster Conservation Measures

Many witnesses expressed their displeasure with DFO's announcement of April 22, 1998 on lobster conservation measures for the southern Gulf. The new measures included an increase to the minimum lobster carapace size over 2-3 years in order to double egg production. Aside from being unhappy with the decision to increase carapace size, witnesses questioned the integrity of the process used to reach the decision.

A representative from the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association (PEIFA) said that the "game began" when the Minister endorsed the FRCC report, and fishermen were given three weeks to prepare a Conservation Harvesting Plan (CHP) for their area which would be given "serious consideration" by DFO.

Bob Morrissey, MLA of District 27-Tignish-Deblois, recounted how stakeholders came meaningfully to the table, and were told by DFO that carapace size was not on the table. In the end, he felt that the whole exercise had been "a silly charade" designed to make the fishing organization think it had some input. Morrissey felt that DFO should have been "up-front" about its objectives from the start, by asking fishermen to develop plans that included a timetable for increasing carapace size.

The PEIFA representative felt that his organization had been co-opted by DFO, and that the process pitted fishermen against one-another.

Witnesses were especially angry that not one of the 10 proposals put forward to DFO for the Area was accepted. The PEIFA representative stated "the Minister didn't even use our work as toilet paper" and he believed the decision was the work of " the team of spin doctors in the Minister's office with an agenda that P.E.I. should be made to suffer because it has the most successful lobster fishery in the world-and other areas don't."

Witnesses said that DFO did not have enough scientific information to allay industry concerns, and that a balance of evidence was lacking. They claimed that DFO did not have the answers to basic questions, and could not provide the empirical evidence.

A representative from the PEI Fishermen's Association (PEIFA) referred to DFO's "inept conservation decisions," and called the decision on carapace size "one of the greatest blunders" ever to have befallen the industry. The representative said the FRCC justified the decision with the rationale that "we don't know if the lobster stock will collapse-we don't know if egg production is too low, but more eggs are always better than fewer eggs so why not increase egg production."

One witness warned: "I put the Minister on notice that he will have to compensate the industry if stocks decline."Another witness suggested that DFO's rationale behind increasing carapace size was that it did not want to "get caught with its pants down again," as it did with the collapse of the cod fishery.

All 10 of the proposed conservation measures put forward by area fishermen were rejected by DFO. A witness pointed out that one of the proposed measures would have had the season close three days early, leaving 80% of female lobsters in the water leaving 140,000 pounds or 280,000 female lobsters untouched.

The Committee was told that the bottom line is the relationship between DFO and fishermen who have totally lost faith in the system: "we thought Anderson had listened with interest."

A number of witnesses asked the federal and provincial governments to undertake a study on egg production and carapace size in cooperation with the industry. Another witness suggested that P.E.I. should have its own separate management zone, and should not be lumped together with Cape Breton and part of New Brunswick as it is in FRCC reports and in DFO decision making.

Recommendation 12

The Committee recommends that, in the future, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans work in true partnership with industry, and incorporate input from stakeholders into policy and decision making.

DFO Management Style

Many witnesses pointed to the need for change in DFO management, decision making and priorities. One MLA pointed out that successive reviews of the fishery have been done, to no avail. He felt that trust has been destroyed and cannot be re-established by using the same management style. He wants to see a "shake-up" at DFO to bring in new thinkers. As another witness put it: "there is a collapse at the DFO, it is time for a tune-up, and not just an oil change."

Other witnesses criticized DFO for maintaining its status quo management by crisis style, which results in "eleventh hour" announcements, and "too little too late" outcomes. DFO management was also condemned for its "us versus them" approach, pitting fishermen against regulators and fishermen against other fishermen. Witnesses said that DFO's "divide and conquer" management style has not lead to solutions.

The uncertainty caused by DFO's last minute announcements of quotas and regulations just days before the season opening was described by one witness: "this is becoming the rule rather than the exception, making it next to impossible for fishermen to plan ahead. It causes controversy right to the end."

Witnesses called for increased input into the decision-making process, and not just "window-dressing": "DFO policy used to be based on fishermen, and now it is accountable to none." Another witness observed that there have been significant changes over the past 10 years at DFO, and commented: "Most senior fisheries managers have been removed and they have been replaced by Treasury Board types who have a distinct Bay Street view of the fishery."

Recommendation 13

The Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans establish a policy for announcing decisions which impact on the livelihood of fishery stakeholders a minimum of 60 days in advance of the usual effective date so that industry can be in position to plan ahead.

DFO Science

The Committee heard testimony that DFO science is not accurate. For example, cuts to last years fall herring fishery were made because DFO could not find any four-year old herring. The reason DFO could not find four-year old herring was because they used nets with mesh size that was too big. The Committee was told that the four year old herring were out there, and that DFO did not listen to the fishermen who were out there in the boats.

The lack of empirical evidence to support this year's lobster conservation measure decision also lead witnesses to question the integrity of DFO science.

Recommendation 14

The Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans develop a program to involve fish harvesters and academics in DFO science, and develop a model to incorporate local knowledge into scientific research, assessement and data gathering.

Access to Quotas

Several witnesses told the Committee that access to quotas should be granted based on the key principles of adjacency and historic attachment.

However, witnesses also testified that DFO has an "enshrined bias" with respect to allocations of licences for Northern Shrimp, Gulf Shrimp and crab quotas. For example, P.E.I. has been fighting hard since 1977 for one permanent licence of Northern Shrimp, and has never been granted a share. A PEIFA representative said that diplomacy with DFO has failed since quotas appear to be granted to those who riot and protest.

One witness, who questioned the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on the allocation process, claims that the Minister responded: "it is all politics."

Provincial minister of fisheries, Kevin MacAdam suggested that a policy is required to guide regional access.

Recommendation 15

The Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans develop a transparent and consistent policy on access to quotas to be applied equitably to all regions.

Aboriginal Fishing Strategy

The Committee heard diverging testimony on the aboriginal lobster fishery.

Some witnesses blamed the "unregulated native fishery" for recent declines in lobster stocks in Malpeque Bay. One witness stated that it is no longer just a food and ceremonial fishery when the fishery is closed to others. "The problem lies after the season is closed. It becomes a totally unregulated. People have been caught selling when it should be for food and ceremonial, and it is not enforced." The witness felt that conservation was a distant second, and that heavy pressure on stocks has given the lobsters no rest or recovery in the shallow waters. He pleaded to close Malpeque Bay to fishing, and cited a 1995 FRCC report that warned of inadequate enforcement in the aboriginal fishery.

The Committee was told that conservation measures should apply equally to native and non-native fisheries. One witness suggested that the impact the AFS has on stocks is downplayed.

In defence of the aboriginal fishery, Chief Sark said the Sparrow Case decision of Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the native right to first priority of access to the resource to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes. He stated that aboriginal fishing rights could only be superseded by conservation. "Aboriginal people have a right to fish-others who hold licences from DFO have a privilege."

Chief Sark explained the Aboriginal Fishing Strategy (AFS) was the result of negotiations between DFO and many aboriginal communities. These negotiations were public knowledge, open to comments from fishermen and their associations. The negotiations lead to an agreement between DFO, the Government of Canada and the Aboriginal people of Canada. Each year, the Band has signed successive agreements with DFO.

While there has always been a food fishery on Lennox Island, the community is issued licences for commercial fishing and for a communal food fishery.

Chief Sark said that the native commercial fishery could not be blamed for decreasing stocks. He explained that the Band uses three types of gear, and has only 10 people in the commercial fishery. "Do you know that two fishermen from the non-aboriginal commercial fishery catch the total quota amount allocated to Lennox Island in two months we only take 0.102% of the total non-aboriginal lobster catch in Malpeque Bay area." The food fishery is also subject to quota and trap limits, and limits per person or per family.

The Chief stated that "we are not poachers, because poachers know no size, limit, or berried lobsters." The Band claims to use a 2 5/8" carapace measure, and does not take shorts, berried lobsters, or large markets. The fishery is monitored by DFO officers, and by two fishery guardians from Lennox Island on Saturdays and Sundays.

Chief Sark explained how the lobster fishery has helped his people to become less dependent on social and medical programs. The Chief felt that DFO and the Ministers office have shut the door for too long, and said his people are "moving to acquire our fair share in all fishery species."

Recommendation 16

The Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans increase its monitoring of both native and non-native lobster fisheries without partiality, and to encourage its representatives to request stiffer fines and penalties for all those caught fishing illegally.

Scallopers

Seventeen area scallop fishermen have been affected by a decision made by the majority of fishermen to drop the spring scallop season in order to alleviate impacts of scallop dragging on lobster grounds. As a result, the scallop fishermen's livelihood has been hurt. One witness testified that in a conversation with Minister Anderson in Moncton, the Minister indicated that he realized the problem and would rectify it.

The scallopers have been lobbying both federal and provincial government officials for either a buy-out or new licence to fish other species. One witness, Ron McLean, estimated that a buy-out would cost roughly $2-$3-million.

Recommendation 17

The Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans review the claims of the 17 scallopers who lost their spring scallop fishing season, to determine whether DFO can provide any form of assistance within its current budgetary constraints, and that DFO advise the scallopers of any alternatives.

Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI)

Two witnesses presented their opposition to the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment. They said that a full discussion is needed on the MAI, which is in their view a set of absolute rights and no obligations for corporations. Several concerns about the MAI were raised by the witnesses including protection of the environment, sovereign rights over natural resources and living resources, and the possible threat the MAI may pose to the Canadian fishing industry.

Recommendation 18

The Committee recommends that the federal government ensure, before entering in to any new international agreement such as the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), that the interests of the Canadian fishing industry as a whole and those of individual Canadian stakeholders are fully protected.