HANSARD

Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services

Mr. Harold Theriault, Chairman

Mr. Alfred MacLeod

Mr. Sterling Belliveau

Mr. Clarrie MacKinnon

In Attendance:

Ms. Rhonda Neatt

Legislative Committee Clerk

Eastern Shore Fishermen's Protective Association

Ms. Nellie Baker Stevens, Coordinator

Ms. Sara MacInnis, Observer

Nova Scotia Fish Packers Association

Mr. Denny Morrow, Executive Director

Xsealent

Mr. Terry Zinck, Owner

Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance

Mr. Jay Lugar, Coordinator

LFA 34 Management Board/Advisory Committee

Mr. Ashton Spinney, Executive/Co-Chair

Ms. Mary Kenneally, Assistant

Guysborough County Inshore Fishermen's Association

Ms. Virginia Boudreau, Managing Director

SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman">Mr. Greg Roach, Assistant Deputy Minister

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I want to thank you. My name is Harold Theriault, MLA for Digby-Annapolis. I want to thank you for being here this morning at our first Subcommittee on Resources in a long while, probably in the history of this province, we don't know. We put this together through the winter to do what we're doing here today. Today we're here to have a debate, a discussion, a presentation on Bill No. C-45.

We've all been getting a lot of telephone calls from the fishing industry not understanding this and asking for a debate to raise the issues in Bill No. C-45. We thought this would be a great start here today in this province, one of the best provinces of the fisheries in Canada and no better place to start than right here.

This will all be made public. It's all recorded. We will have presenters to the table; one presenter at a time or one group at a time. After the presentations are done, we will all come to the table and have a round table discussion on this, and what comes out of this subcommittee will go back to our Resources Committee, and the final conclusions of it. With that, I will let my colleagues introduce themselves.

[The subcommittee members introduced themselves.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: With that, we will have the first presenter. Really, we didn't put in any order here who would speak first, so the first one who wants to get up can come to the table and present. If I have to make a suggestion, I will.

MS. VIRGINIA BOUDREAU: Good morning, my name is Virginia Boudreau and I'm the manager of the Guysborough County Inshore Fishermen's Association. Honourable members of the House of Assembly, participants and observers, good morning. Please accept our thankful appreciation for the opportunity to participate in this fisheries forum to discuss the new federal Fisheries Act. I must first apologize for my membership, as they could not participate this morning, they are all on the water lobster fishing.

We have engaged in much discussion with various groups in and out of our industry over what is being called the new Fisheries Act, or Bill No. C-45. I'm here to pass on the position of the Guysborough County Inshore Fishermen's Association's membership. GCIFA is committed to a new fisheries Act, and in a timely manner. We, our industry, have been creating this Act for many, many years, and it did not just fall out of the sky on December 13, 2006, there has been much discussion and bickering, if you will, as to what should and what should not be in this Act. We continually remind ourselves that this is a fisheries Act and, for us, it should primarily solve or serve the fishing industry's issues.

We cannot afford to wait much longer for a new Act, as our current regulators cannot manage our fisheries' resources under the current Act. Court challenges with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have resulted in legal decisions stating that DFO can no longer manage the way they have in the past.

The old Act is not suitable in many ways, for the modernized way we all fish and manage our oceans - and that is not to defend whether the modernized fishery is right or wrong. Unfortunately, there is no contingency plan being developed for the management of our fisheries if this Act does not get passed - and, yes, the fisheries are our main concern as we are fishermen. We feel the Oceans Act has taken care of the oceans aspect of DFO quite nicely. We could wait five more years to develop another Act, but we worry greatly what state our fisheries would be in by that time.

Under the existing Acts, science cannot be paid for by quota or licences, and this industry has complained every second of the day since 1992, when the groundfish moratorium was placed upon us, that more money was needed for fisheries science. No new money came, and with the rationalization of fishermen came the rationalizing of DFO's budget for science, enforcement and even management.

The Oceans Act also had a hand in our current situation, as it left DFO responsible for all aspects of the ocean, and not just fisheries management, but very little budget was attached to this new responsibility. I do not recall too much of an uproar over the Oceans Act, but we all know that it did very little to serve or support the fishing industry, and sailed through the House like a clipper ship in an easterly gale.

If you do not invest in a business, it will go belly up, and we all know that can and has happened within our fisheries many times. We are in no way trying to defend DFO's management or decision making in the past. In fact, we could spend the whole day with our concerns regarding some of their decisions, but we do realize that in order to get the money for science, enforcement and management, DFO has had to be creative. Yes, the industry went along with this because money was not coming from any other source.

We entered into JPA agreements that allowed crucial scientific surveys to be completed on our existing viable commercial fisheries and new exploratory fisheries to be developed based on sound scientific advice. It is very unfortunate they were forced to use payment and management methods that under the old Act were unacceptable. Under a new Act we can continue with our science/ industry-based fisheries management that is improving every day. Even the new integrated ecosystem-approach-based management requires very expensive science and time management. Where are the funds coming from to support this commitment to ecosystem management?

We do realize that there are groups or stakeholders involved that would be pleased to see our industry operating from a 100 per cent precautionary approach. Without the proper fishery science data - which industry cannot afford to pay a higher percentage of the science fees and DFO has limited resources - we are forced to go to a precautionary approach where all fisheries without science will be set at quotas or limitations to reflect a fishery in distress or collapse. That would include just about all of our commercial fisheries. We do need a new fisheries Act and we need one soon.

A quick note on the owner/operator, as it sets the stage for many of our current concerns with the new Act. We feel the current minister is dealing with this issue through the Commercial Fisheries Licensing Policy for Eastern Canada, and we are comfortable with policy doing what it should. There are many policies we do not like, but we do have a say in them and with this new Act supporting the co-management regime, we accept the responsibility to help manage. We have not identified any major issues that we cannot deal with through fisheries policy changes or through our integrated fisheries management plans. We feel the new Act is flexible enough where it should be and stringent enough in other areas.

In closing, I would like to include a personal observation of my own. If you know fishermen at all, they are the most creative and resourceful group I have ever had the pleasure to work with. Just tell them they can't do something that they absolutely need to have done or to do, give them a day and they will find a way around it.

I thank you very much for your time and your attention. We appreciate the opportunity to come to give our views.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Virginia. I should have said at the beginning, we set the time limit on 10-minute presentations. Originally, we had eight or nine presenters, and I believe there are only five or six here today, so if you want to take some more time in presenting, please do so. Thank you.

MS. BOUDREAU: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The next presenter is Mr. Jay Lugar with the Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance

MR. JAY LUGAR: Good morning, my name is Jay Lugar. I'm the coordinator of the Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance, and I'm happy to be here today. I will be just making a brief presentation on one aspect that is contained in the Act but it also pervades existing fisheries management.

My apologies, I don't have any prepared material today but I'll be referring to a couple of documents, and also these are letters that we have sent to DFO and the minister, so I'd be happy to share a copy of those with you later on. Some of them are historical letters, and there's one current one.

If I can just continue, I would like to first advise you, or at least inform you of the Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance. It is sort of an umbrella group that was started post the Marshall Decision in 1999. It is a unique group in the sense that it is not only Nova Scotian, we have members in the other two provinces in the Maritimes, both New Brunswick and P.E.I. It has both processors and harvesters in the organization. There aren't many organizations in this area that try to be able to address the issues around both harvesters and processors, although it is certainly not unique, it is just somewhat different.

[10:15 a.m.]

The purpose of the Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance is to protect the interests of the commercial fisheries industry as treaty rights and Aboriginal rights are implemented in our fishery. So we have been active during the time from 1999 onward on that score, and we continue to be active. At the time, there was a large outcry and a lot of issues to be dealt with, as I am sure you recall in your own ridings, during that time. Over the seven years or so, and it will be fully eight come this Fall, but over those years, the fisheries management and interaction between Aboriginal commercial fishermen and non-Aboriginal commercial fishermen has changed substantially.

I'm not here today to talk about those broad issues, but I do want to bring to your attention one particular issue, and this is one of the areas that we are currently focused on. The other area, I should say just briefly, that we're currently focused on, is the

negotiations with regard to the long-term agreement between Mi'kmaq and the province and the federal government.

As an aside, I suggest to you that that is a topic you may want to turn your attention to at some point in time down the road, as that negotiation moves forward it is certainly something that we're very much interested in knowing how it is eventually going to be implemented, that is the eventual impact of long-term, or shall I say, final level, of implementation of the Aboriginal commercial fishery inside the existing commercial fishery.

The focus of my brief remarks today is going to be strictly on fisheries management agreements. This is one component of the Act, and it is being represented to us, I guess, and to everybody, as sort of the modern version of implementing things that are currently being done in the fishery. You've all heard the term co-management , well, the previous version of this Act, under the previous government, actually used the term "co-management". This Act, C-45, uses the term fisheries management agreements, and these are broad agreements, or potentially narrow agreements, that can be used for the department and a fleet or, really, any particular group to come up with a new method of managing their own fishery.

Our concern with fishery management agreements - and it exists in terms of DFO fisheries policy even today - but our concern with fishermen agreements is that they will be used as an opportunity for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to create separate, if not special, agreements with Aboriginal organizations, whether it be a band, a group of bands, a Native Council or any Aboriginal organization that is different and has a different set of rules in it than the rules that are currently in place for the other side of the commercial fishing industry.

Now these are just commercial operations we are talking about and the core of our understanding is that a commercial operation, whether it be with large vessels, small vessels, Aboriginal vessels run by a community co-operative, run by an individual, run by a corporation, run by a band, when they are on the water they should be following the same set of conservation rules inside that fishery.

As a specific example I'll take one fishery that I think the two of you are quite familiar with, let's take the LFA 34 lobster fishery. There are currently some Aboriginal commercial fishermen involved in that fishery. If DFO is going to use fisheries management agreements to have a separate arrangement with those licences and then use a fishery management agreement that has a separate arrangement with the other commercial licences in the same fishery, and if that former agreement set out different rules with regard to escape mechanisms, with regard to legal size, with regard to seasons - like starting a week or two early or something of that nature - you could imagine the furor

that you would encounter in the areas. I am of the mind and believe that DFO is not inclined to go down this road currently.

We have some verbal communication with DFO officials saying that they are likely, and want to keep the commercial fishery managed as a single entity and not to have separate rules for separate groups inside the same fishery. We're still concerned because there are examples on the West Coast whereby they have set out separate rules for Aboriginal commercial fishermen inside some river systems, primarily the Fraser River system - it's called the pilot sales program - so it is a precedent, and what they do on the West Coast tends to find its way to the East Coast and we're just concerned.

That is the nature of our concerns and, as I say, it doesn't relate only to C-45, it could relate to the current policy and implementation, but because fishery management agreements are spelled out in the new bill and the ability in the new bill for DFO to have an agreement with any class of person or licence holder does concern us because it permits these types of operations.

What I would like to do now, having expressed that to you, is to provide two things. First off, the reason why we think on the commercial basis that Aboriginal licences and non-Aboriginal commercial licences are equivalent and have the same priority, and our thinking on this comes from the second Marshall Decision which was in November 1999.

I would just like to quote briefly a couple of excerpts from that, and they are:"The 1760-61 treaty rights were thus from their inception enjoyed alongside the commercial and recreational fishery of non-natives." This is the court talking about their view of how treaty rights should be implemented, and the operative word in that instance is "alongside" - equivalent to, together with, not separate from. The court also spoke at the time - and for your own reference this comes from Paragraph 38 of the second Marshall Decision - it says: "The notion of equitable sharing seems to be endorsed by the Coalition, which refers in its written argument on the motion to the equal importance of the fishing industry to both Mi'kmaq and non-Mi'kmaq persons." They are quoting one of the applicants in the court action at the time.

Finally, and I think it is instructive, the court said: "Equally, the Mi'kmaq treaty right to hunt and trade in game is not now any more than it was in 1760 a commercial hunt that must be satisfied before non-natives have access to the same resources for recreation or commercial purposes. The emphasis in 1999, as it was in 1760, is on assuring the Mi'kmaq equitable access to identified resources for the purpose of earning a moderate living. In this respect, a treaty right differs from an aboriginal right which in its origin, by definition, was exclusively exercised by aboriginal people prior to contact with Europeans."

So the point being in both those instances is that the court feels - and I believe that they have continued to be consistent with this in their other more recent decisions on Aboriginal rights and treaty rights not related to the fishery but related to other subjects - that when it comes to a commercial enterprise, there is consistency between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal fishermen in this instance. So that is our concern that it be implemented in DFO and DFO policy.

Finally, I would just like to, for your information, read to you the subject matter of a letter that we wrote to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans - and I would be happy to share a copy of this with you either after the fact or whenever - this is the recent letter, late in April, and it says that we believe the proposed fishery management agreements, as well as other agreements that involve conservation rules in other "on the water" fisheries management rules for Aboriginal fisheries could create a situation in which groups of commercial fishermen will be treated unequally or unfairly. A hallmark of the commercial fishery is that once a licence holder is on the water, he or she has the same opportunity to derive an economic return as all other commercial licence holders in that fishery.

We urge the department to maintain this "single commercial fishery concept" for all licence holders and a gear sector species vessel size and/or area grouping that defines a particular fishery. On the East Coast, your department - that's speaking to the minister - has been supportive of a single commercial fishery. We hope that fishery management agreements will not cause or be used to separate Aboriginal commercial fisheries from other commercial fisheries. We ask for assurances from you that the department will continue to manage the fishery as a single commercial fishery and that fishery management agreements or other agreements will not create separate commercial fisheries, or separate fishing rules, for Aboriginal Canadians in Atlantic Canada.

So it's a pretty small point, but it's a huge point if you think of the implications. We are concerned that the department be made aware of the possibility. I believe some of the department is, and we would just like to emphasize that fact. So thank you for the opportunity to be here today to highlight this concern that we have with regard to Bill C-45.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Jay.

MR. LUGAR: Would you like to do questions now, or that will be the afternoon portion?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe we'll wait until after all the presentations and then when we come to the round table group, that will be the time I believe for that. Our next presenter.

MR. DENNY MORROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the House of Assembly. I'm Denny Morrow, Executive Director of the Nova Scotia Fish Packers Association. Our association has 58 member companies around the province. We estimate the value of our exports of seafood at somewhere over $400 million annually. With me today is one of our directors, Terry Zinck, and I'll let him introduce himself as well.

MR. TERRY ZINCK: My name is Terry Zinck. As Denny said, I'm a member of the board of directors of the Nova Scotia Fish Packers Association. I also own a vertically integrated seafood company in Clarks Harbour and Cape Sable Island - an excellent seafood company.

MR. MORROW: I don't have a formal presentation. What I circulated to the members is something that we have tried to digest, the 110-page Fisheries Bill, small print, much of it written in legalese, difficult to understand, so what I have tried to do for our association members is to pull out sections of the bill that we think are of concern to us.

Also scattered throughout the bill there are certain themes, things to do with licensing - for example, you may find in one part of the bill and then you find it later and so on. So what I have tried to do here is to pull it out. I haven't always quoted verbatim from the bill - sometimes I have put it into my own words and you people, as legislators, know that sometimes there is danger in doing that because each one of these words, I'm sure, is crafted with some intent, but for the business person to try to understand this thing, it's difficult.

So I certainly want to compliment you today for having this session and giving the industry a chance to discuss it. There has been a great deal of media attention, I read articles from across the country; and politicians are speaking out on it. But what we have tried to do is look at the bill itself, see how it is going to affect us and the way we do business. So what I will do here today, and you can stop me when my time is up, is I am going to start at the beginning of the bill, and in the document that I presented to you I clearly indicated where it is our discussion, not the bill itself - you know, how we see this.

[10:30 a.m.]

So I will start with the consultation process. As of April 30^th, Bill C-45 seems to be stalled and that's when I put this document together on how consultation on the bill should be conducted. The Liberals and the NDP in Parliament seem to be supporting a hoist amendment which asks the government to start the consultation process before Bill C-45 goes to second reading. The government and the minister are saying that consultation should take place after second reading and under the guidance of the House Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

An opinion that we want to express, that one of the most important clauses, Clause 30.(1) which deals with licensing - and I will get to that a little later - for example could be amended as discussed below in this document and that would be a significant change in the bill. If that could be amended after second reading, then it would seem that moving Bill C-45 to second reading would not prevent the kind of discussion and possible amendments that critics of the current version of bill are advocating. If, however, the legislative process would not allow the kind of rewording of Clause 30.(1) suggested below, then hoisting the bill would be warranted, in our view. So I will get to that Clause 30.(1) in a few minutes.

In the preamble of the bill, there are about 12 "whereas" statements - these are kind of motherhood statements that are set out as guiding principles - and these statements have been criticized because they do not obligate DFO and the minister to do anything that is measurable in terms of success or failure. It might be interesting to take one of these guiding principles and put it to a test where results can be stated in concrete terms.

A suggestion - and we took one of those whereas statements - "Whereas Parliament intends that Canada's fisheries be managed sustainably, to benefit present and future generations of Canadians;". Opinion: DFO should request, with the consent of the fleets involved, that the Marine Stewardship Council conduct its sustainable fisheries certification analysis on two new different fisheries, each in the Atlantic and Pacific regions. This process would provide an objective, third-party review of at least four different fisheries to see if they are being sustainably managed. Not only would Parliament have a sustainability report card on these fisheries, but the certification process might provide some guidelines for the development of an accountability process in regard to the whereas above.

I might say that some of the biggest customers for seafood in the world, Wal-Mart, for example, has set a timeline where they will only be sourcing seafood products from fisheries that have been certified by the Marine Stewardship Council. That's a growing trend around the world - the Department of Fisheries and Oceans knows it, our members, certainly, are seeing it every day. I'm getting calls from companies - whether they're herring products or groundfish - asking what are we going to do about third-party sustainable certification? So, anyway, it's a suggestion.

Moving on to Fisheries Management Agreements/Programs and Projects. Clause 11 - the minister may undertake programs and projects whose objectives may include: improving the abilities of a fishing enterprise or organization, union, Aboriginal organization with regard to business management and the management of harvesting of fish; improving the fishing techniques of an organization's members - there are a number of things that these agreements can do.

Opinion: Many fishermen's groups have been saying for years that if co-management is to have any meaning, then DFO needs to invest in capacity building with fishermen's organizations so that they will have the skills and financial means to take on more management responsibilities. The opposing point of view, however, expressed is that DFO will be able to play favourites in deciding which groups to favour with capacity building projects.

Clause 12 goes on to talk about the minister facilitating implementation of these programs by making grants or contributions; making loans or loan guarantees; and the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Ministers of Fisheries and Finance, can make regulations respecting these grants and loans for projects and programs.

Opinion: An urban issues dominated Parliament has been reluctant to allocate more money to fisheries management and science in recent years. The question must be asked - what are the prospects for DFO to get additional public money to invest in capacity building and co-management projects? The expectation in the industry is likely that a little public money will be used to lever more money out of the industry. Like so many clauses in the bill, regulations - yet to be written - will spell out the implementation. For certain, the bill will give the minister and the bureaucracy more power and more flexibility.

Clause 13 talks about entering agreements and arrangements with any province, and I don't think it's an accident that the provincial departments, by and large, are supporting the adoption of Bill No. C-45.

Clause 43.(1) goes on about fisheries management agreements and the purpose of them, and details that a fisheries management agreement may establish who the group of persons or licence holders would be; the roles and powers; funding arrangements. For example, amounts that licence holders to whom the agreement applies are required to pay the organization - in other words, if a fisheries management agreement is done with a fishermen's organization, then DFO actually would be enforcing the contributions to that organization through the agreement. In some fishermen's groups that has been criticized.

Clause 43.(3), a fisheries management agreement can establish guidelines to be used by the tribunal - and the tribunal comes later in the bill - when it makes an order or penalty in respect to a major violation against a licence holder/person to whom the FMA applies. What's happening there is the fisheries management agreement actually would bring the fishermen's organization into the setting of penalties under the bill. So a person who has been charged and convicted may serve a penalty that the organization has recommended. Opinion: Regulations to be written will spell out how DFO will select the groups that are eligible for a fisheries management agreement. That's an important issue and it's not spelled out in the Act, it will come later in regulation. How will DFO pick

and choose? How will DFO decide that the group is representative and has the support of fishermen in the sector? What is meant by a class of persons?

The industry and DFO have had some experience with these kinds of projects called Joint Project Agreements. The courts, lately, have struck down some of these agreements when challenged by a fisherman - the Larocque decision, for example, a snow crab fisherman, I think.

There is no doubt that more investment in science is needed in some of our fisheries. Joint Project Agreements have been used by the industry and DFO to develop the necessary funding for some science projects. Again, without some kind of flexible mechanism that involves the industry and DFO as partners, where will the money come from to do the necessary science that makes fisheries management possible?

Then, going over to Clause 55 - and I'll be pointing this out, this is consistent throughout the bill - that Governor in Council can make regulations for entering into fisheries management agreements and their ratification. So we don't know what the criteria is going to be or what the regulations will say. Opinions are being expressed, cynics are saying that DFO will write regulations that could undermine equality among fishermen in a gear sector or a species fishery. The phrase "classes of persons" has triggered concerns.

Fees and cost recovery, this is important to all fishermen, all processors. I'll skip to the opinion part of it. Clause 17, "The Minister may, subject to any regulations that the Treasury Board . . . fix fees in respect of products, rights and privileges . . ." privileges in this case I guess would mean licences ". . . provided under this Act." The financial objectives and guidelines to ensure fairness across sectors and regions for licences and access fees are not stated. The clause above it, Clause 16, sets out some guidelines, Clause 18 sets out some guidelines, but Clause 17 does not. I think that's an important omission.

Opinion: There's a perceived lack of fairness or common principle in establishing licence fees for the various fisheries. Clause 17 does nothing to address that. In the ITQ groundfish fleet in South West Nova, for example, it's been the practice of DFO to charge access fees up front for the entire quota even if the quota cannot be caught due to bycatch issues or market conditions. Also, the guiding principle in setting access fees and licence fees with DFO seems to have been internal revenue targets and political considerations. Cost inputs in many fisheries have changed considerably in the last five years, and in some product markets margins have shrunk or disappeared in the face of competition from low-cost countries.

It might be prudent to ask what are the DFO objectives and rationale when it comes to setting access and licence fees in the different fisheries and regions? The

financial objective isn't stated and whether the rationale accounts for changing economic conditions in the different fisheries, everything is passed off to regulations that will be written later.

So go down to licensing, which is a very important issue, and once I've gone through these comments, I will ask Terry to comment from his point of view and his company's point of view. There are some definitions laid out first, but I'll skip right through to some of the important clauses: "27.(1) The Minister may make regulations respecting applications for licences and their issuance, including regulations respecting eligibility criteria."

Opinion: What will be the guiding principles for eligibility requirements for a licence? Guiding principles have been described for types of sanctions that may be applied by the courts or tribunal, the principles or objectives for alternative measures and fisheries management agreements. The Canadian fishery has evolved and certain licence renewal and transfer practices have become an expectation in the industry. The vagueness of Clause 27.(1) is a concern. The minister goes on - will be designating persons as licensing officers.

Clause 30.(1) which I talked about earlier: "A licence confers privileges and not any right of property, and may not be transferred."

Opinion: This clause is proving to be one of the most contentious in the bill because it does not reflect recent court decisions, lending practices or the value that has come to be attached to a licence in the marketplace. A court in the recent Royal Bank of Canada vs Saulnier decision said that a fishing licence is an intangible property, even if it isn't a tangible piece of property. That decision went on to say that there is also an expectation that the licence can be transferred to the buyer of choice, limited by conditions in the regulations.

The wording in the above clause seems to describe the attributes of a lobster licence, for example, in the State of Maine, but not in Nova Scotia. If a lobster fisherman in Nova Scotia wants to leave the fishery, he can find a buyer for his licence and the price may reach, I will just use $500,000, in some areas. He can request that DFO transfer his licence to that buyer, and there is an expectation that the transfer will take place and thus support the monetary transaction. In many cases, the sale price will be the core of the fisherman's retirement.

[10:45 a.m.]

In Maine, when a lobster fisherman retires, the licence ceases to exist and there is no buyer or expectation of a transfer. Depending on the lobster fishing area in Maine, a new fisherman can enter the fishery from a list of applicants who have served in an

apprenticeship. A set fee is paid to the state for a new licence. If we are replacing a 137-year-old Fisheries Act in order to better reflect today's fishery and commercial realities, shouldn't we try to describe the process that we actually use to transfer a licence?

Clause 30.(1) might be worded in a positive manner to reflect today's reality - a licence confers privileges and has intangible property attributes and there is an expectation that a licence holder can transfer a licence to a buyer of choice subject to the following limitations as described in the regulations, and the minister could set those out. Again, I will go back and emphasize if we can't change Clause 30.(1) after second reading, then perhaps Bill C-45 should be hoisted.

"Clause 31. A licensing officer may refuse to issue a licence to an applicant who meets the eligibility criteria set out in the regulations or interim orders made under section 27. . ." above.

I will go down to subclause (b) of that. "Clause 31.(b) the licensing officer has reasonable grounds . . . " and I have underlined that ". . . to believe that the applicant has, with respect to the licence, entered into an agreement whose purpose is contrary to the regulations or interim orders made under section 27;"

We certainly have a problem with subsection (b), and I have underlined reasonable grounds. I have asked, at some of these information sessions that DFO has had on the bill, if I call up a licensing officer and say that my neighbour, Terry Zinck, who has a lobster licence, I believe is in violation of some regulation, has never been accused or convicted, is that grounds for denying him renewal of his licence or a new licence? I was told no, that would be hearsay. Then I asked, what might you do? Might you present him with a piece of paper saying sign here? Yes, we might do that. I see in some of the communiqués that have come out from DFO since the owner/operator policy was announced on April 12^th that there is going to be an internal DFO committee that will be reviewing licence applications, licence renewals. It sounds like a court to me, but you don't get a chance to present your case.

Going on to Clause 32, if a licensing officer refuses to issue a licence or does not issue it within a certain reasonable period after an application, the applicant may appeal to the tribunal within the prescribed period. I point out that the Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing licences or classes of licence for Clause 32 - appeals to the tribunal, apparently, not all licence applications will have this appeal mechanism. You have to read through the entire bill to understand that.

Clause 206, for example, the Governor in Council may make regulations pertaining to imposing fees to be charged with respect to licence appeals under Clause 32 and proceedings in relation to violations and prescribing the amount of the fees. So, in

other words, if your licence application is denied by the licensing officer, you can appeal to the tribunal, and you're going to pay the costs of the appeal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Denny, maybe we could let the rest of the presenters go on. We could get back to this, maybe starting at the controlling agreements, in the round table, when we get to it, if you wouldn't mind.

MR. MORROW: Okay, fine, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Zinck, would you like to present, please.

MR. TERRY ZINCK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What I want to talk about as well, I want to focus on the licensing section of the bill and transferability and how it's affected by the recent regulations that are being legislated with regard to the owner/operator policy. If you would like, I can talk about it now, or I can talk about it later at the round table discussion. It's entirely up to you folks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe we could do that at the round table when we start on the controlling agreements. Would that be all right?

MR.TERRY ZINCK: Sure, part and parcel with the controlling agreements, that might be well suited.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Our next presenter, please.

MR. ASHTON SPINNEY: Honourable members, my name is Ashton Spinney. I have the pleasure of being chairman and co-chairman of LFA 34 Management Board/ Advisory Committee. I come today, first of all, saying to you all that we definitely need a new Act. There's no question there. The areas that we enter into here, this is only just a brief look at Bill C-45, and there are some areas that create some concern for us, thereby we felt it was important to take up your invitation to be here today. I would much rather be on the water. When I left home it was sunny and beautiful - no it wasn't, it was dark, but it was nice out.

On behalf of LFA 34 Management Board, I would like to thank the Nova Scotia Government for recognizing the importance of having a strong and fair federal Fisheries Act, for providing a forum for fish harvesters and community groups to provide insight and the impact of this bill and for an opportunity to discuss the contents of the proposed bill. LFA 34 Management Board acknowledges that many components of this proposed bill deal effectively with fisheries' concerns. This is only our preliminary assessment of the bill. Please understand, as an organization, we cannot carry out an in-depth review of the proposed Fisheries Bill 2007 until the end of our Spring fishery. There is concern of whether we will be given sufficient time to carry out an industry review of the bill in

order to develop and to submit our recommended changes - and I would add, amendments - to the proposed Fisheries Bill 2007. My next question is whether Minister Loyola Hearn will incorporate the necessary amendments into the new Fisheries Bill 2007?

This presentation deals specifically with a major piece that this bill neglects by omission - I won't go into great depth on this - the owner/operator and fleet separation, and the clauses that deal with aquaculture and tribunals, et cetera.

Numerous reviews of the proposed Fisheries Bill 2007 make note that the existing 138-year-old Fisheries Act needs to be modernized. What these reviews fail to mention is that the existing Act enabled the establishment of the first Canadian Department of Fisheries - under a different name - with a mandate to deal with two critical issues that independent fish harvesters and most provincial governments of coastal provinces recognize as priorities of current times - to protect fish stocks and to protect the economic, social and cultural foundation of fishing communities in Canada.

The state of our oceans, and the state of our fisheries resources demonstrates that these two original DFO mandates are even more critical today than at the time of Confederation. It was recognized by the federal government in 1868 that fisheries technology could wipe out fish stocks and fisheries jobs and thereby destroy the economic, social and cultural foundation of Canadian coastal communities. The LFA34 Management Board strongly advises that the Fisheries Bill 2007 maintain the intent of the 138-year- old Fisheries Act in a manner that requires DFO to protect the fish stocks, fish habitat and coastal communities dependent on these resources. The Fisheries Bill 2007 must include the owner/operator and fleet separation policies thus bringing these policies to a higher level of federal law. In Part 1, Clause 26, under Licensing, include that the holder of a fishing licence must fish the licence and be the primary beneficiary of its financial rewards. The holder of fish quota mush fish the quota and must be the primary beneficiary of its financial rewards.

The inclusion of these two policies - owner/operator and fleet separation - in the new Act, would give these policies the force of law. Inclusion of the owner/operator and fleet separation into legislation would put to rest the fears of DFO privatizing public renewable resources within the fisheries.

Rationale: For over 30 years there has been absolutely no political will within DFO to acknowledge the existence of the owner/operator and fleet separation policies. In fact, the intent and directives by DFO decision makers has been to ignore the existence of these policies, which is clearly shown in a number of inshore fleets DFO has allowed to become vertically integrated. To add insult to injury, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans intends to reward those who knowingly manipulated and contravened these DFO policies with a grandfather clause. This alone proves the point that DFO cannot effectively deal with the owner/operator and fleet separation through policy. The recent announcement

about the fleet exemptions made on April 12^th by Minister Hearn is in opposition to recommendations made by DFO in two rounds of the Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review and is in opposition to the recommendation made by John Hanlon. The result of all three reviews showed a unanimous response to DFO that the owner/operator and fleet separation policies must be maintained, strengthened and enforced.

Summary:

i) After 30 years of failing to implement or to enforce owner/operator and fleet separation policies, DFO continues to claim that owner/operator and fleet separation can deal with it by fisheries policies.

ii) The recent announcement by federal Fisheries and Oceans Minister Loyola Hearn further substantiates that DFO cannot put into practice a mechanism to deal with owner/operator and fleet separation policies within the inshore fishing fleets of Eastern Canada. The announcement of April 12^th included fleet exemptions to the independent core status which further substantiates and validates the DFO managers' past intent to privatize through vertical integration of the East Coast inshore fisheries industry.

iii) Those fisheries fleets the minister exempted from the new regulations further substantiates a strength of support within the federal fisheries management bureaucracy to reward those who knowingly contravened federal fisheries policies. Where is the fleet separation policy?

[11:00 a.m.]

iv) Current and past management practices within DFO is proof that DFO cannot deal with such important policies as owner/operator fleet separations that were put into place 30 years ago to protect the fish stocks and fishing communities.

A question that begs for a response from Minister Hearn: What are you, Minister Hearn, telling the youth of our great country by your action to reward those who knowingly connived to contravene federal public policies? Canadian youth, be sure to watch closely to see how our government can be manipulated and controlled to make fisheries policies ineffective. If you're smart enough, you can devise a plan to control and monopolize a Canadian public resource for your own personal gain at the expense of the economic, social and cultural fabric of rural communities in Canada, and you do this regardless of federal policies. If you show the federal government you can do this, you'll be highly rewarded for your efforts.

The federal government must own up to past mistakes that allowed the vertical integration of the inshore fishing fleets in a manner that contravened existing federal policies and put into place the mechanism to correct this wrongdoing.

The current minister must seize this opportunity to right this serious wrong and to prevent fisheries' monopolies and fish lords in Atlantic Canada. Incorporate owner/operator and fleet separation in the Fisheries Act 2007. Cancel the exempted fleet status concocted to reward those who knowingly contravene these policies.

There are some clauses in here that I just thought we'd bring to your attention. Page 16, the Fisheries Bill, the new proposed Fisheries Bill, Clause 6.(a), we suggest a change there, and it reads the minister must take into account the principles of sustainable development and must apply an ecosystem approach to the management of fisheries and in the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, that was 6.(a); 6.(b), we also strongly suggest that must apply as a precautionary approach. In this clause, the terms sustainable development, ecosystem approach, and precautionary approach must be defined. I'll read that again because it's important - in this clause, the terms "sustainable development, ecosystem approach, precautionary approach" must be defined. The word "seek" must be deleted and the words "must apply"must be used in the bill.

Under Agreements with Provinces, Page 17, Clause 7, and the Fisheries Management Agreements on Page 26, they suggest the minister must publish an agreement. The method to publish agreements must be easily accessible to the public and in a timely manner. Programs and Projects on Page 18, Clause 11.(c), we need to define economic viability - and later this afternoon in our round table, I'm sure we can look at how you understand economic viability.

I'll just depart from my presentation for a second. You may fish all year and only have $100 to your name when you finish the year, you've paid your bills, you've fed your family and you have no huge bank account - is it economically viable? The thinking of the day is if you don't have a big bank account at the end of the year, or a big bottom line, you're not economically viable. I think that's a dangerous precedent to be allowing to not be spelled out in our new fisheries bill. Anyhow, it's just a thought for you two, and these are thoughts for you people too.

Clause 11.(d) promoting adjustment in a fishery, including industry restructuring - that should be clarified. Enter into agreements, arrangements with any person, body - boy, Clause 13.(a), that needs to be clarified. I've heard other presenters here really question that. There's a serious need here, and I agree with the comments that were made.

Clause 16 - and under 17 also - the minister may fix fees. Under 16, the fees may not exceed the cost, but the minister may fix fees in respect to products, rights and privileges provided under the bill. This is in addition to fees set under the approval of the Treasury Board? So we see this as a downright right by the government to download all the costs to us as fishermen, as fish harvesters.

Allocations - buyers, processors can secure their means of access to fisheries resources through traditional methods of purchasing fish from fish harvesters. The buyers who pay a fair price for landed catch maintain their access to available landed catches. Those buyers who have difficulty to maintain access to the fish resource sometimes as a result of direct bad business practice as a result of the buyers' business practices.

There is no need to give property rights of fish quota for 15 years. This is, in fact, a privatization of the fishing resource. It took less than 15 years for a quota management system to bring about the demise of the groundfishery and brought the Atlantic cod stock to near extinction.

Fisheries Management Agreements. One commercial fishery, there must be one set of rules and regulations for all participants in the same fishery. This ensures an equal and fair treatment of all Canadians, including inshore fleets, First Nations, communal, commercial licences. DFO cannot perpetuate the division of fleets by signing on to co-management agreements with a minority faction within a fleet, or different agreements with separate groups within the same industry.

Fisheries Management and Conservation and Protection of Fish. Part 1, Page 21, Clause 25.(2), we suggest an amendment there of an insert - the minister "must" to replace may, that's to replace may; the minister must. The minister must take into account (a) to (g), fairness, fishers' adjacency, et cetera.

Page 24 and Page 28, here's one that is really concerning to us, aquaculture. In Clause 36. "The Minister may issue leases for aquaculture purposes." Clause 49 reads, "No person shall fish in any area to which a lease issued under section 36 applies, or set in such an area any fishing gear or equipment, except by permission of the leaseholder, and no person shall interfere with activities authorized by the lease." Clause 49 must be deleted. If you don't think so, we have included, if you look along the little map that is there that we have of the coastline of Nova Scotia and you see all those green dots on your paper that you have before you, those are all leased areas. That prohibits me as a commercial fisherman from going anywhere near those leased areas under this new proposed Fisheries Bill. This causes great concern to us here.

DFO must ensure existing fisheries that use areas identified as aquaculture lease sites are not displaced - refer to the map, it shows you below. A conflict of interest is inherent in DFO's critical mandate as protector of Canadian fish stocks and protector of fish habitat and ecosystems at the same time being responsible to develop aquaculture.

Some of the reasons why aquaculture development conflicts with DFO's mandate to protect fish and fish habitat:

i) Chemicals introduced in the water column by aquaculture to kill sea fleas are also detrimental to other species.

ii) Medications administered to farmed fish to control fish stress and diseases are introduced into the water column, therefore introduced to other ocean species that natural habitat is the area in or near aquaculture sites.

iii) Residues of these medications are found within the farmed fish sold as a food product.

iv) Pollution of large areas of fish habitat from farmed fish waste products is a long-standing issue yet to be resolved.

v) Aquaculture sites deny public access to large areas of ocean, that's if this goes through. Large areas of ocean.

vi) Aquaculture sites displace other fisheries in fish farm areas.

vii) Aquaculture displaces other ocean species from their natural fish habitat in fish farm areas.

viii) Aquaculture does nothing to increase existing fish stocks but actually increases the depletion of existing fish stocks that are used as feed for farmed fish.

ix) Acquaculture sites increase the biomass of sea fleas, thus increase the demise of fish larvae and juvenile fish stocks that exist or migrate in or near aquaculture sites.

x) Escaped genetically-modified farmed fish threaten the existing natural biomass of the fish species.

These are concerns that we raised about this. There may be safe ways, but these things need to be nailed down.

Fisheries Act Tribunals: I'm glad that Mr. Morrow raised that area, we have a concern here. The concern is if it is going to be a political appointment by one Party in power for these tribunals, we have strong problems with that. If it's multi-Party, all political Parties, much the same as you have here today, then we feel there's more fairness to us in that so, thereby, it's important that the tribunal also be made up of a cross section. They must be knowledgeable - we put in here - about Canada's fisheries resources. They must be knowledgeable. With that, we're looking forward to the round table. Thank you.

[11:15 a.m.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ashton. That was some pretty good input from Bill C-45. I read it three times, and you just pointed out some things there that I didn't read just right either. So this will be a good opener for debate here in Atlantic Canada, I believe.

With that, if you all want to come to the table right now, or if you want to have a five minute break of some kind, too, I think we should go right on and maybe stop at 12:00 p.m. and then we can reconvene after some lunch, if we need to, and go on. So if you would like to come to the table now and we'll have a round table discussion.

We'll need a few minutes anyway to see where people will be sitting so Hansard will know exactly who's speaking at the right time. Pick your seat anywhere.

I call this round table to order. We were scheduled to go until 12:00 p.m., but we could go on until 12:30 p.m. and see how far we are at that time and, if we need more time, we can take a break for lunch, because we have the room until 3:00 p.m. if need be.

With that, I would like to start off with my colleagues asking a question to get it going. Before you speak, could you just say your name for the record, for Hansard, so they will know who is speaking. (Interruption)

MR. SPINNEY: Some of these people, we don't know who they are, maybe we could have introductions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we can do a round table introduction. We will start here with Denny.

[The witnesses introduced themselves]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, with that, we will start with Mr. Belliveau, please.

MR. STERLING BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank all the ladies and gentlemen for your presence here today. I really value your participation, and I think Nova Scotia will be enriched by the discussions here today.

I just want to make note of a couple of comments. I have a number of questions but, because of time, I'm going to start off with one or two first. I want to kind of end with the last speaker's presentation who talked about tribunals and his concerns of fairness, about people being knowledgeable and participating on such a tribunal, if that will actually evolve.

If I can just lead back to Mr. Denny Morrow's presentation regarding Nova Scotia Fish Packers Association. Mr. Morrow, I want to emphasize a point that you made, I want to get it correct. You, in your observation of the Fisheries Bill in general, had difficulty in explaining some of the wording in that. Am I correct in that evaluation?

MR. MORROW: Well, it is written in legalese, and we are business people, so you have to understand it, and the implementation, when I go through the various clauses, usually the nuts and bolts of it are yet to be defined in regulation. I understand that when the House of Assembly or Parliament passes an Act that it's a framework, and then it's regulations that really implement things but in our business, where we are so highly regulated, you start to say well, what are the regulations going to say, and you start to put some hypotheses forward. I certainly did that.

I hope at some point here today that I will get a chance to - a big section of the bill is on conservation, protection of fish, fish habitat, and pollution prevention. That part, a lot of it will affect fish plants around the province. I really want to comment on that because the tendency so far is to just discuss the bill as it affects fishermen.

MR. BELLIVEAU: The point I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, is that I was going to use Mr. Morrow's credibility here. I just want to give people a background. I think what I heard is that you had difficulty with the wording of this particular bill. I want to highlight Mr. Morrow's background. It's my understanding that you are a representative of the Nova Scotia Fish Packers Association. You also have an educational background. You have been on many boards. You also represent the fisheries alliance. I made note of that. I'm not here to review your resumé, but I think this is a very valid

point, that the terminology in this particular bill is very vague. There are people who need to understand this.

I will give you a scenario here, that some lawyer or some judge in 50 years time is going to look at the wording of this document. We have a 138- , 139-year-old Act now, in 50 years if some lawyer or some judge does a review or decision on this particular wording - and I think I would feel very comfortable with Mr. Denny Morrow's background, of feeling comfortable with your observation that there are some words in there that you are not comfortable with, I take great concern and reservations about that. I think this bill needs to be clear. That's the point that I'm trying to make. If somebody of your qualifications cannot interpret this bill, we have a problem with the bill, and the bill needs to be very straightforward and I think it needs to be in terms we all can understand. I would just like to ask for some discussion with some of the presenters on that particular point, because I think a lot of these particular policies and clauses in here are very vague.

I'll leave you with one other note. My understanding of Denny Morrow's explanation, there was one clause in it, Clause 30, about the transfer of licences, and this was the other point, the very first clarification that the federal minister made was to send out a fax suggesting that these licences can be transferred - the complete opposite of what's being said in Clause 30.(1). I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, and the members present here, I think that's what you alluded to, is that if there's going to be one particular clause that needs to be amended, that's the one we need to get all political Parties - I think the other speaker addressed it, that they want to feel comfortable.

To me, there is the olive branch here, if we can suggest, maybe from this committee today, that here is an approach that we can ask all political Parties to sign an agreement that that one clause will be amended to read the way we know it should read, that these licences can be transferred. There's two points that I'm going to put out for discussion. I'd like to hear some response.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like to respond to that, Mr. Morrow?

MR. MORROW: Well, everything that I've heard out of Ottawa has been that it's time that we took, I guess, a 138-year-old Act - I said 137 - and brought it up to date. If it doesn't reflect reality, today, the way we do things - we have two members here, I believe, who have lobster licences, when you fellows decide you want to go out of the business, I'm sure you expect to sell your licence, find a buyer for it. That's the way we do business. The horse is out of the barn, this isn't Maine, so why shouldn't Clause 30, Part 1 - I suggested some wording just as a starting point, and I understand the minister has the prerogative to set out some conditions on transferability, that you can't go out and find somebody in Dorchester, for example, there are bound to be some limitations on it, but there's an expectation that you can find a buyer and you can make a financial transaction when you get rid of your licence.

[11:30 a.m.]

That's not the case down in Maine. Clause 30.(1) describes what actually happens in Maine, not what happens here in Nova Scotia or the rest of Atlantic Canada. To me, that's a basic starting point, and if this goes to second reading and you can't change that to reflect reality, then it shouldn't go to second reading.

MR. SPINNEY: I agree with Mr. Morrow's comments, that it shouldn't go to second reading if that can't be amended and clarified. It should be clarified. If there's no amendment, there should be a clarification that there is a way of transferring licences. I believe they brought it about for the minister's recent announcement, it is called independent core. Every fisherman now will become an independent core, he has until the end of October to sign an application form, a declaration to DFO stating his situation with his licence. Then there will be an assessment made of that, and he will be classified as independent core as long as he doesn't have a controlling agreement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions? Mr. MacLeod.

MR. ALFRED MACLEOD: I'm still interested in hearing, in relation to Sterling's question, about the way the bill is written and the way people are comprehending the bill. Again, going back to Mr. Morrow's issue, I've been reading a lot of Acts lately and I still sometimes have the same question, so I guess I'm wondering, in your case with some of your fishermen, and your case, I'd like to hear some of that back if we could.

MS. BOUDREAU: In Guysborough County we have 109 lobster licence holders, probably two crew members on each boat, of those 300 or so fishermen, how many do we think are actually going to read this bill? My estimate would be six. Unfortunately, that is reality. What they will read is Mr. Spinney's interpretation of the bill; they will read Mr. Morrow's interpretation of the bill; and they will read Ms. Baker Stevens' interpretation of the bill. They will read that because it's in layman's terms. It's in their terms and, not only that, it's reflective - what they say is going to be the reality on the boat, on the wharf.

Mr. Sterling Belliveau, when he met with us in Guysborough County, stated that as well - that if you want people to react to this bill and to respond to it and to interpret it, it has to be in terms that they can understand. So, you know, the bill is confusing. It is confusing and most times, speaking from their point of view, they really don't care what's in the bill, the wording - it's the interpretation, it's what's actually going to happen to them because of this bill. We can sit here all day and try to guess what's going to happen - and that's what it would be, it would be an informed, educated guess. Of course, as managers, I guess that's what we're expected to do. Will we be right? Will we be wrong? It's anybody's guess. Do I understand what's in this bill? No, I don't and I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I do. I'll do my best to read it, interpret it, and put it out there and say this is what we interpret - what are your thoughts? You know, where have I gone wrong - and I guess that's sort of why we're sitting here.

In response to Ashton's comments on the transferring of the licences, and Denny's, we don't have a problem with the clarification. We would like to have the clarification on the transfer of licences. We think licences should be transferred. You should be able to, if you're getting out of the fishery then somebody else should be able to get in. The criteria should be there and we expect that it will be there. When we say we don't have any glaring concerns with the bill, that is why, because we expect that we will be contributing to that criteria, and if we don't like it then we're going to be right back here saying the criteria is where we're going to be consulting, and we're moulding this bill to something that's useable for our industry. I hope there will be more people there to do the moulding because it's going to take a lot.

MS. NELLIE BAKER STEVENS: I agree with everything actually that Ginny has to say. As an organization - and we have over 200 members, plus of course their crew who go out - I don't know for sure that even one has read it. And I'll be truthful with you - because I knew I was coming today I spent yesterday afternoon going through it. I thought I should know probably what I'm talking about. I don't think I'm any further ahead after reading it. I've written, interpreted, how I wanted to see it.

There are things, as a coordinator, that we coordinate many fisheries on the Eastern Shore with multi-species, right? As a coordinator for the fishermen, I looked at it and I said I think I can use this; I think this is going to help us. I see good things in it, but that's my interpretation, and when we meet with DFO - my understanding is it's when or if this gets passed - we're going to be sitting with DFO to work out the details. It's not done - once this gets passed, my understanding is there are going to be lots of meetings, lots of consultations on the interpretation and the detail, and that's where I plan on making sure that what my interpretation is will come to light.

There are a lot of very good things in here that will help us. I'm sure that Ginny sees it there, and I'm hoping the rest of you have looked and you see very good things for organizations that are trying to co-manage the fishery. When you're dealing with several species, I liked the flexibility in here, and I heard Ashton talk about you have to change some things to must - well it was explained to us why some things are "must" and some are "shall", and the shall is because you need flexibility. Every industry and every set of fleets are not exactly the same and every area can be different. When there were consultations way back in 2001, that is something we said - one size doesn't fit all.

We questioned that, too. Because it all looked good, like adjacency and all this equal and fair communities, et cetera, why isn't it "must"? Because they're very important things - each and every one of those points are very important. But they explained to us and now it makes sense to me, "shall", because once you put "must" in there that's it for everybody, whether or not it is Cape Breton or South West Nova, if you say "must", adjacency for example, that's locked in, you can no longer backpedal and change it - well maybe it works in this area, but maybe for this fleet or this particular time, it doesn't work here. So I'd like the flexibility, and I expect years of consultations

with DFO when, or if, this gets passed. This, to me, is the stage that is going to be set for the industry and then it is what do we do with it and how is it interpreted, and that to me is the big job.

Let's get this through, with its warts; let's get it through and then let's begin what I call the real work - to sit down and interpret it. And I plan, on behalf of our fishermen, to interpret it in the best light possible that will help us the most.

Of course what Denny says, the way that Clause 30 sounds, a transfer of licence, I have questions on that as well. Actually the few phone calls I got were on that particular clause because fishermen believe that they own their licences. Actually my husband is a fisherman and we're planning on that - that's our retirement; that's already planned. So when you say that it cannot be transferred, that was a question of DFO that I had. They explained to us that this isn't anything unusual, this is policy; this has been policy since whenever. But they go - when you go and ask for a transfer - how many times have you been said no to? It's automatic, it is done, but it's very scary, for a fisherman who believes that it is theirs and they're making their long-term plans on it, to say that it cannot be.

I agree with everybody else here who says that wording really should be looked at. If they need to put criteria exceptions, anything, if they want to put a whole new section in, that it can be transferred, go ahead. That cannot be transferred, and that's really, in my mind, what the fishermen are having the problem with, not the rest of the bill - not that they're reading it. But if that answers your question - maybe I went on too much on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Baker Stevens.

Mr. Zinck.

MR. TERRY ZINCK: Denny mentioned earlier in his presentation that it seems - and understandably so - that a lot of discussions surrounding the new bill are dominated by harvester issues. Although we are involved in harvesting, my company is a processing company and I've been involved in seafood processing and marketing for over 20 years.

I just want to reiterate, from a processor's perspective, what's being said around the room with respect to how the bill is written and how it can be interpreted. I think when I read the bill, and I can get a good understanding of the content and the intent of the bill, however what's alarming are some of the things that jump out at us - and I think that's the same with any document, you read a document, there are certain things that jump out at you - this one is even more alarming because it is intended to become a parliamentary document and one that's going to lead our industry for many, many years to come.

In saying that, that's the reason we are here today. I think we have a responsibility and due diligence, as players in the industry today, to make sure this bill is right, that it is crafted properly and we're not just thinking about our current situation, the situation of ourselves, but the generations to follow.

In saying that and getting back to a couple of these things - and I could pick out a lot, but there are a couple that really jumped out at me - one is under Clause 55. It actually talks about classes of persons with respect to FMAs and, when I read that, if nothing else as a layman, but more importantly as a citizen of the Country of Canada, I thought we had gotten beyond that with our Canadian Constitution. I cannot believe - and again, maybe not being able to understand the intent, but I believe I do understand the intent - that we are thinking about moving a bill through Parliament which in the 21^st Century refers to classes of persons in our society. I just wanted to point that out - it makes me very uncomfortable and it is echoed by many people who are familiar with the bill and have taken the time to read it.

The other thing, of course, which has been echoed here over and over again - and I want to take my turn, if I may, Mr. Chairman, to echo it again, and it centres around licensing, transferability, et cetera. The thing that, again, jumps out at me with that is that we have this bill which became public the early part of the year, and we started reviewing it and when we got to the section on licensing and transferability, of course, as has been discussed here today, I guess for some of us we couldn't believe what we were reading. It affects anyone who is involved in fishing licences. Denny pointed out that there are a couple of you in the room today who have fishing licences and obviously you're not fishing them, but that may indicate that indeed yourselves and many like you have arrangements where you can continue to get economic results from that licence.

[11:45 a.m.]

Then on April 12^th we were introduced to the new regulations of the owner/operator policy, and something I would like to point out before I get into that is it's ironic to me that we are having so much debate with respect to this new Fisheries Bill - not that we are having the debate, I think that is very valuable and important, but what keeps coming to the table is the fact that the Act is 138 years old, over a century old. The owner/operator policy is over a quarter of a century old. A lot is made of the fact that we can't use a parliamentary Act that was a century old to govern our industry today. I think it is also fair to say that it's equally as important to recognize the fact that it is difficult to use another policy, being the owner/operator policy, 30-plus years old, to govern our industry today.

That being said, it's moving forward and I would like to talk about that from not only a processor's perspective, but also from the perspective that we gathered from our fishermen. When I introduced my company earlier, I told you that we were a vertically integrated company. Most of you, I'm sure, in the room know what that means - it means

that we're involved in harvesting, processing, secondary processing and marketing of our seafood products. I find it kind of entertaining that from time to time those of us in the inshore industry who are directly involved in harvesting are referred to as "fish lords" - that actually was mentioned earlier today in Ashton's presentation - and the reason I find that entertaining is when you have the connotation of a lord, the connotation is usually great profits and great wealth. I just want to qualify that I'm speaking here today as a fish commoner - I certainly don't qualify as a fish lord. However, we are vertically integrated and we are involved in harvesting of the seafood that supplies our plant.

There is certainly debate out there on whether seafood companies should be involved in harvesting, and thus the reflection on the owner/operator policy in the new regulations. There was a time when the industry talked about vertical integration they usually looked on the bigger companies, the offshore companies - some are still in existence, some are gone - they were vertically integrated and over time the quota that was deemed necessary to run their operations was grandfathered into their operations in the offshore. Enterprise allocations, as they were known, became exempt from anything relative to the owner/operator policy.

A lot has been said over the past 30 years since the owner/operator policy was written, that DFO has done a poor job in actually implementing the regulations that are attached to the owner/operator policy, and thus today they're going to fix that.

I suggest that the reason that ignorance, if you will, to the application of the owner/operator policy is because the industry was evolving well beyond anything that the owner/operator policy was intended to do. The owner/operator policy was intended, of course, to separate church and state, meaning that fishermen would be fishermen and processors would be processors and never should the two combine their interests.

In talking about that, quite briefly, we see as vertically integrated processors that in fact even the owner/operator policy as it is written today, in the new regulations, continues to contradict the intent of the policy in the first place. I'll give you an example: As a processor it should be that I cannot be directly involved in harvesting. In other words, I can't have interests in licences to benefit my fishermen, or myself for that matter; however, a fisherman can own a fish plant, can own a lobster tank house and can be involved in marketing, a direct contradiction of the owner/operator policy which says that the two shall be separate.

We have no problem with that and, as processors, I think you'll find that you don't hear that coming to the table very often. The reason that we don't have a problem with it up until now is because the policy was not regulated to the letter and we were able to involve ourselves in harvesting - which we felt was a much-needed part of our companies in order to survive - supply of raw material.

DFO claims that the so-called involvement of the industry in inshore licensing, inshore harvesting licences, was going on and they weren't a party to it - and in some cases they will claim that they weren't knowledgeable of it. I have a problem with that, I have first-hand knowledge, I've been at meetings over the past 20 years, particularly during the downturn of the industry, where DFO told us just the opposite. They told us - our cry during the downturn was what are we going to do for fish? The quotas are being cut, fishermen can't go fishing, they don't have enough fish to go fishing with, our boats are laying idle at the wharf, how are we going to run our plants? - you have to combine your operations, you have to combine, you have to go out and secure your supply of raw material any which way you can.

What will come to light over the next several months - because there's a six-month period to initiate the final step of putting the regulations in place for the owner/operator policy - is that DFO was very knowledgeable and, at times, actually played a part and gave advice on how processors could get themselves involved in certain harvesting practices.

That being said, I just want to give you a quick example of what it means to my company. We have had many consultations just over the past week or so, both by teleconference and meeting room gatherings of industries and fishers alike, to discuss the new regulations concerning the owner/operator policy.

If a company has a group of licences which they have purchased or have an interest in, they obviously have to put those licences in the hands of fishers in order to exercise the use of the licences and gain the quota attached to them. There is a connotation out there that if a processor holds the interest in a fishing licence it is taking something away from the fishermen. In some cases that may be true, however I can give you first-hand examples of where that is not the case. Very often these licences have come into the hands of processors within the last 10 to 15 years - as the industry downturned, the quotas were cut and these inshore licences were no longer viable to the individual fisherman who held them. In other words, there wasn't enough fish left on the licence for them to make it economically feasible to go fishing, so they opted out of the industry.

Getting back to what we talked about earlier and what has been said around the table - there was an expectation that the licence had some value to someone, and part of their retirement, if you will, from the industry with some dignity was to sell the licence to someone who could use it and they would bow out of the industry - very much supported by the industry as a whole and by the federal government, DFO as a whole, less players. As a matter of fact, as you all know, DFO actually initiated a buyout process of their own back in the early 1990s.

So what was happening was these licences were becoming available. To an individual fisherman, they were at that time, and remain today, almost useless. If a

fisherman had to acquire that licence and generate a fishing enterprise from it, there wasn't enough fish allocated to that licence to do so. So the result of that is that you look at the package, a group of licences. For example, and this is the example I'm going to give you, a company like mine, and several others, many others in Atlantic Canada, would be approached by the fisherman who wanted out of the industry - are you interested in buying me out? Well, of course we are, because at the same time we're looking at securing our supply of raw material. Again, it could be fair to say, well, just as easily a fisherman could acquire that same licence. You have to keep in mind, and it's paramount, that that licence would be literally useless to a fisherman, simply because it's not economically viable to fish it.

So the licences were acquired by the companies. Something else I want to add, a lot has been made in the new owner/operator regulations of support from the chartered banks, registered financial institutions as they're referred to, for buying licences. I've had probably 15 fishermen in my office over the past week discussing this issue. I can assure you, that of those 15, a very small percentage of those fishermen would have the wherewithal to go into the bank; even today, if I were to offer them up a licence that we have an interest in, they would not have the wherewithal to acquire the funding necessary from a financial institution to buy that licence from me. Furthermore, there seems to be a connotation in the owner/operator policy that the banks are going to take the licence as collateral - although that is contrary to the new bill and how transferability is referred to in the Act - they would be able to take that licence as collateral and lend the fisherman the money to buy it from me or to buy it from another fisherman who may hold more than one licence.

That's not the case, and we are in discussions with the banks right now. That isn't the case, because the fisherman not only has to put up a licence for collateral, he has to put up his house for collateral, his car for collateral, his first-born son, and whatever else the banks may ask for, assuming he has a good credit to get him that far. You have to remember that many of these fishermen have struggled over the past decade and a half and it has affected their credit, not unlike some processors in our industry. The security that the banks and lending institutions feel in financing, for example, companies like mine to buy interest in licences is because we have an infrastructure that allows us to verify that we are able to pay the bank back on whatever monies may be lent. It becomes part of our overall operation of our company, as opposed to an individual going in and wanting to borrow the money to buy a licence. As an analogy, if an individual goes in to buy a car, depending on their credit, there's a lot of red tape and a lot of paperwork that may follow in order for them to get a loan. If I go in to buy a truck for my company, a lot of that is reduced because I already have established credit with the financial institution.

Anyway, that being said, what's happening now, and the result of the gathering of this interest in licences, is that it has done two things, it has allowed me to secure a supply for my company, and certainly not a supply that's healthy enough that without any other supply my company will operate, because that's not the case, but what it has allowed me

to do is take the licences and the attached quota from fishermen who have decided to opt out of the industry and feed it back to the fishermen who are trying to stay in the industry. Meaning that fishermen come to me, arrangements that I have with fishermen, already have existing fishing licences, their dilemma is that they have decided to stay in the industry while their next-door neighbour, who is a fisherman, decided to opt out of the industry, however, they still don't have necessarily enough quota to go fishing. So they come to me and say, Terry, can we make an arrangement? Of course we can. What ends up happening is that I allow him to use the quota that is on my licence so he has enough to go fishing for the year and, in return, I buy the fish back from him at fair market value.

Again, the fish lord scenario, the connotation is out there that prices are being driven down, if you're tied into an agreement with a company and you're selling fish to that company you are getting paid less, et cetera, nothing could be any further from the truth. Anyone who knows the competitive atmosphere in our industry today knows that that is not conceivable nor possible. If we are not paying fair market value, we are not going to get fish, period, from any fisherman. It's as simple as that. That is indicative of the groundfish industry, and it is also indicative of the lobster industry.

I would challenge anybody to go around the lobster shore today - whether they are fishing a licence which they have an interest in, or a licence that they own, or they're fishing with one someone else has an interest in - to show me the variance in the price they are getting paid at the wharf, and show me that it is significant. I would really challenge anyone to produce that information.

Of course, where I'm going with this probably is self-explanatory. Ashton earlier alluded to the fact that the minister saw fit to provide an opening in the regulations that certain fleets may be able to exempt themselves from the owner/operator policy based on vertical integration. They have gone so far as to specify some of the fleets that may qualify for vertical integration. However, we get back to classes of persons, I guess my question is, and I think it needs to be asked of the minister, from where has the list been derived? How can the minister or anyone else with that responsibility and that power say that my neighbour is able to do this and I am not able to do it even though we are competing in the same environment and the same industry? It doesn't make any sense.

Furthermore, and I would like to end on this note, I can sit here all day - and I would love to, but I have taken up enough time - and talk to you about the strife of the processors and what this means for those who have interests in fishing licences, but I want to tell you that this is not isolated to the processors. We have fishermen working with our company who do not share any interest in a licence with our company. They are independent core fishermen, whatever you want to call them, who also have a real grave concern of what this regulation is going to mean to them simply because they have done the same thing as we have done. There are individual fishermen out there who hold more than one licence. By regulation, they can't hold more than one licence in their name, so they have interest agreements, trust agreements, whatever you might want to call them,

with other fishermen who are holding the licence in good faith to allow the fishermen to access the quota that is attached to those additional licences. They are not in any different situation than we are.

[12:00 p.m.]

I think rather than look at the industry and break it down in classes of persons, meaning processors, fishers, who is qualified, who is not qualified for exemptions, I think we need to look at the industry as a whole, as Denny pointed out earlier, with a more broad- based look at the bill with respect to licensing, take a realistic approach to what is really happening in the industry today and let's not take a 30- year-old document and try to imply or regulate that document into today's fishery. It doesn't make any sense. That makes no more sense than trying to take 139-year-old Act and apply it to today's fishery. The principle is the same. Thank you for your time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Zinck. Does anyone else want to speak on that?

MS. BOUDREAU: I would like to respond, if that's okay. Thank you, Mr. Zinck. I appreciate Mr. Zinck's opinion, as I do Mr. Lugar's, Mr. Spinney's and everyone else around this table. When we were invited to participate today, it was with the hope that it would be a group of individuals who would come and address their specific issues and that it would be a broad enough group, so, me, coming from my little corner in Guysborough County, with my issues, they are not going to be her issues or this gentleman's issues or those issues, they're going to bring their issues or their interpretation of how this bill is going to affect them. That way, we can look at the whole bill and assess how it's going to affect the whole industry.

Saying that, and I do appreciate that my comments are on the owner/operator, for sure. Everyone who gets into this industry, whether they're a harvester, processor, market analyst, or association manager, comes in with the same risk. It's a business. Whether it's a fishing business or an aquaculture business or whether I'm selling wood, we all have the same risk - we invest our money, we invest our time. If it is viable, under the rules and regulations of this particular industry, then we'll survive. If not, well, there's the door. We may be pushed out, we may be forced out, we may just walk out on our own accord. Hopefully, in some cases, we can do that.

The other thing about the owner/operator is that its intent is to protect not just the fishing industry per se, the big global industry, it's to protect our communities, it's to protect the social aspects of our lives. Now, if the owner/operator was challenged and enough Canadian citizens felt that socially, economically, the communities are not worth saving, they're not important enough, the way this fishery has developed socially, from family-based enterprises, if you want to call them - that's how it has evolved, it seemed to have worked fairly well with a few bumps in the road, yes, - we would collectively have

to decide that that's not the fishery we want. At times, we're going to butt heads, you have a different perception of the fishery for whatever reason. That's not to say that they're wrong, it's just to say are there enough people who agree with the way you would like the fishery to progress to have that owner/operator tossed out. I would say from where I'm sitting, and that's all I can say, from where I am sitting I would say no.

Now as far as what DFO has allowed, not too long ago I got stopped for speeding. That RCMP officer, legally, was supposed to give me a fine, and he should have given me a fine for the safety of all you guys, and not only that, to protect the law or policy or whatever you want to call it that's put in place to protect you for the reasons that are there. Well he didn't, he decided to give me a warning. Well, I was thankful for that, but that doesn't make it right.

If I'm selling drugs - mind you, that's an extreme case - for 10 years and never get caught, that doesn't make it right. The owner/operator, because it wasn't enforced, doesn't make it right that it wasn't enforced. That was wrong to start with. If we invested time and money, as an industry, into an industry and ignored policy, whether it is right or wrong, whether the policy was a good policy or a wrong policy, or regulations, and we invested time and money under those regulations, and now we're crying we got caught, or, okay, now you allowed me to do this for 10 years - well, I'm sorry, we all got in under the same rules and regulations, we knew them up front, we know the risks. So as far as saying that the owner/operator policy isn't doing what it should do, well I disagree. I think the owner/operator is there to protect our communities, it is to protect our fishermen.

Now, the owner/operator policy is not a processing policy, it's a harvesting policy. Am I wrong? I don't think so, but you can challenge that. As far as processors owning licences, if you as a processor want to go aboard a boat and go fishing, I welcome you. I bet the industry would welcome you. The owner/operator challenges anyone who doesn't want to go aboard the boat and go fishing. As far as saying there are fishermen out there, harvesters out there who own four or five licences, well I'm sorry, they shouldn't. It is our hope that that owner/operator policy looks after them as well, right or wrong. I'm sorry, if it's black and white for me, it's black and white for you. That's the other side of it. As far as saying that, as processors, it saved fishermen from bankruptcy or whatever, that's the risk they got into when they got into the business.

If you hadn't - not you personally - but if the processing sector had not bought up licences to get that extra quota, that gentleman would have been out the door and the gentleman in the next boat would have got that quota regardless, because the management boards manage this quota. Right? It's divided up amongst all licensed holders in a fair sharing arrangement that is pre-set. That fish is not going to stay in the water, you can be sure of that, it would have come out by someone. That would have left the guy in the next boat more viable, in my opinion. Now, that's just my opinion, you can challenge that as well. The other thing is that if that quota had been passed on to the next guy, then it

makes it easier for him to stay in business. So that quota is not going anywhere. If it didn't go to the processing sector, it wouldn't have been into the black hole.

As for the banks loaning money, there is no problem with you, as a processor, loaning me, a harvester, money to purchase a licence if I can't afford it. It's the control that you attach to that loan. If I'm going to bank A, they're going to give me an interest rate of 5 per cent, 10 per cent, whatever. I can go to a loan shark and get a loan. Does that make it right? Is he operating within the regulations? We really do have to look at the bigger picture.

As far as processors controlling fish prices, right now in Nova Scotia it's not a huge issue for our processors or our buyers to control the fish prices because they don't control enough of the harvesting. They don't control enough of the quota yet. Without the owner/operator it is, in my opinion, that maybe down the road we would have fear of that.

So, from where we're coming from, the owner/operator policy to some industry people, or people who are involved in the industry, it's holding them back. But to us, as harvesters, and I speak for harvesters, it's protecting us. Do we need to be protected? Maybe we need to look at that. Maybe we don't need to be protected. Maybe we can operate under a different arena and trust each other, I don't know. But, to date, we don't have that yet. I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.

As far as the fleets who are exempt, it is in our opinion, and my opinion, and the opinion, I guess, of my association, that those fleets that are on that list of exemption, they already control 100 per cent of that quota, or those licences, so that's why they're getting the royal treatment. There are no individual or independent harvesters aboard most of those fleets, that's why they're exempt. Should they be exempt? In our opinion, no, they shouldn't.

That's our view on those particular issues.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Virginia. A lively debate. Before we go on, maybe I'll just ask, I think we can probably spend another two hours at this, no problem, I know Denny wants to get at it some more, how about if we break, unless you want to finish off, Ashton.

MR. SPINNEY: I will probably finish with the question the honourable member asked, how many fishers read it and will understand the bill? I think there are very few fishermen in LFA 34, and there are close to 1,000 - 980 licence holders, I don't know how many crew, who may have scanned through some of it, a very small percentage. Understand it? I'm of the opinion - I'm not an educator, and not as educated as our learned gentleman here, Denny Morrow, but if he can't get through it, where do you think I'm going, as a fisherman?

The other side of the coin, and I liked Terry's comment he made, and I agree with him 100 per cent, we have to get over - he didn't make this comment, but I want to say before I try to quote it to a degree what he said from my words - we have to, I believe, look past the things of today that are causing us to be very concerned. To sum up what Mr. Zinck said, that we're forming an Act here for the future, we don't know how many years, and we have to be very careful that we just do not try to shape it in just a certain way that we want it to go, but through the betterment of our fishing industry, for everyone involved, and we need wisdom in there, and we need a lot of wisdom.

The things that we've been discussing here will be overcome and worked out, but the Act itself, and this is the concerning thing, we've had one that's gone, I've heard, 137 years, I've heard 138 years, and 139 years, but anyhow it's 130-plus years. So the thing is, this comes about, and it may be another 150 years before it is ever revisited again. As Mr. Morrow said, we have to think of - I lost the comment I was going to make to him. I'm sorry, I'll have to bring it back later, Denny, I was going to quote you there, something I wanted to bring up and something else flashed . We look at this bill, and it needs to have a language, I believe, that we can understand that cannot be used - well, let's put it another way, 10 years down the road we will sit down and we'll reinterpret it, and 10 years after that it'll be reinterpreted again. Is that healthy? No. This is what Mr. Zinck has been getting at.

[12:15 p.m.]

One year it is interpreted, we go so many years under that, then it is reinterpreted again. Somewhere we need to have some clarity, and that's why we're here today, we need to talk these things through, we need to talk to our federal government, to our provincial government, to the people who are responsible, so that we have, at the end of the day, a very good working document that is useful for everyone in this industry.

Remember, we have to have everyone in the chain, from the harvester to the end user, we have to have them all. Our industry will not exist if there's a break in that chain. We should be trying to keep foremost in our mind to keep all these - can I use the word players or individuals or sections to be involved there - one cannot become so strong that it takes control of all the rest, that's a break, and that causes a serious problem and concern.

So we will have more discussion on that this afternoon. I thank you. As far as people, yes, there are a few reading it. Understanding it? I would say zero, myself included.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Spinney. How about we break now for 45 minutes or so and try to get back maybe at 1:00 p.m. I would say we'll take the two hours this afternoon, no problem. Anyway, with that, thank you.

[12:18 p.m. The committee recessed.]

[1:15 p.m. The committee reconvened.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd like to bring this meeting to order, please, if we can. We have until 3:00 p.m., an hour and 45 minutes. I hope everybody had some lunch. First of all, this morning, Mr. Morrow didn't get his full presentation out, and I believe he would like to touch on a couple of things in his presentation and maybe that will give us direction for talks this afternoon. So, anytime you are ready, Denny.

MR. MORROW: I'll just start off with one comment coming from this morning about the tribunal and the fear that it is going to be staffed by people from one party or the other. I guess when I read the tribunal and questioned whether I would have time to really get into it today, but I have done an analysis of it. My reading of it is, when you exempt anybody from the fishing industry, or a fishermen's organization, or a processor organization like ours, because of conflict of interest, who does that leave? I'll tell you who came to my mind when I was reading it, it was ex-DFO people, that's who I see will be on the tribunal. (Interruption) Well, I'm not so sure of that, but at any rate - because you have to look at who is going to be appointing them, and you know the role the bureaucracy plays.

I would like to spend a few minutes commenting on something. The provincial jurisdiction, the provincial department and the provincial government is largely focused on the processing sector and what takes place, buying fish, lobsters, processing it. Sections of the bill, and I'm referring here to Clauses 56 through 72, I think Clause 72 has to do with - when you get into the 70s - aquatic invasive species. It's a very important part of the bill - conservation, protection of fish, fish habitat and pollution prevention. So I'll start off with an opinion after reading those sections.

There is an Atlantic-wide task force and a task force in Nova Scotia of government agency representatives to research and make recommendations regarding seafood processing plant effluent and its affect on the coastal marine environment. The same type of inter-government agency task force exists in New Brunswick and has made recommendations regarding lobster, crab and herring processing plant effluent. The government agency task force is headed by the federal Department of Environment - by the way, the federal Department of Environment people tell me that they get their powers from the Fisheries Act when it comes to the marine environment - and it includes DFO, provincial fisheries, CFIA, and I believe the provincial Department of Environment, at least in New Brunswick it does.

In New Brunswick, the seafood industry representatives through the New Brunswick Fish Packers Association volunteered to participate as well. The task force in Nova Scotia has complained that it doesn't have sufficient powers under the existing Fisheries Act to do sampling, to identify and establish toxic - and you'll see all through

the Act this term, "deleterious substance" - in effluent from different types of seafood processing plants, to establish quantities and concentrations in the regulations of deleterious substances that are harmful and should not be permitted, and to order a plant to correct a polluting situation.

The Nova Scotia task force has relied on seafood processors to volunteer to have their effluent sampled and analyzed. Sections of the new bill seem to give DFO and the Department of the Environment, as well as the provinces, the power to do the things discussed above. There is a perception from Nova Scotia media reports over the past 10 to 20 years that the main sources of coastal marine pollution do not come from seafood processing plant effluent but from untreated municipal sewage, agricultural runoff - fertilizer, manure, and chemicals - effluent from other heavy industries, and the physical breakdown of packaging and plastics that end up in our waterways and our coastline.

It is questionable, in our minds, as to whether Clauses 56 to 72 of Bill No. C-45 will do anything to address these sources of marine pollution in Nova Scotia. These sources seem to be left to the provinces. The federal Department of the Environment is currently funding a research staff position at Dalhousie and the person is analyzing samples of seafood processing plant effluent for toxicity. It's not known if the analyst is testing any municipal sewage, agriculture runoff or effluent from other industries. It is likely that such a position is referred to in this bill as an analyst - I refer you to Clause 76.(1) - and/or a certification officer, Clause 77.( 1).

Definitions are important. Clause 56 of the bill: " 'deleterious substance' means (a) any substance - including water that has been treated, processed or changed by heat or other means from a natural state - that, if added to any waters, would be deleterious, or likely to be deleterious, to fish or fish habitat or to the use by humans or fish that frequent those waters;"

I make the comment that I was always told when I was in university to never use the word you're trying to define in the definition, and you will see that later, Governor in Council will make regulations on advice from the minister as to what substances and what concentrations are deleterious. And I tell you, remember the research position at Dalhousie analyzing plant effluent.

It goes on down, Clause (c): "any water that contains any prescribed substance, . . . in a quantity or concentration that equals or exceeds a quantity or concentration that is prescribed . . ." Nowhere does it tell who's going to do the prescribing, and in our view that's a serious issue. And (d) "Any water that has been subjected to a prescribed treatment, . . ." Nowhere in the bill does it tell you how that's going to be determined. And it goes on to define "deposit".

I'll go down to Clause 59.(1): "No person shall carry on any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration or disruption, or destruction, of fish habitat . . ."

unless authorized by the minister and carried out under conditions prescribed by the minister.

Opinion: I expect environmental groups will likely see Clause 59 as a licence to pollute for the oil and gas industry, and some other industries that operate in the marine environment. Industries like seafood processing will fear the establishment of endless bureaucratic red tape that will kill growth and investment in marine - related industries.

Clause 60.(3):"no person shall deposit or permit the deposit of a deleterious substance in waters frequented by fish or in any place under any conditions where the deleterious substance . . . might enter such waters." Now this section seems to give DFO powers to go after municipal waste, agriculture and other industry pollution, but there seem to be exceptions made later.

Then we go down to - in fact the provinces seem to have a fair amount of input into that. Go down to Clause 63, "The Governor in Council may make regulations . . . (d) prescribing the deleterious substances or classes of those substances that are authorized to be deposited despite subsection 60(2);" So you see, what you are getting here is once deleterious substances - somebody will do this and we are never told who - once that has been decided, then if you have that in your effluent or in your waste, in whatever quantity, you will have to have a regulation authorizing you to allow it to go into the marine environment.

It's a different system than we have today. I think what we look for today is if there are examples of pollution events, you see them and then you go after the cause of it and investigate it. But this way, before you deposit anything, the deleterious substances are defined by somebody - we are never told who and we are never told what the process is going to be - then you are going to have to go through the bureaucracy to say here is what I'm putting in the water and I want to continue to do it. Then you start your process. Our experience with that kind of stuff is, it can be a killer.

They prescribe the waters are places where any deleterious substances are authorized to be deposited. I'd make the comment here that if you are depositing effluent in the Bay of Chaleur for example, where it is shallow, where it gets very hot, the water does in the summertime, and there is not as much tidal current, much different than, for example, around the Bay of Fundy or South West Nova where you have big tides, you have big currents, you have cold water and also you don't have the amount of concentrated processing that they may have around the Bay of Chaleur.

So anyway, just expressing an opinion, I would assume that Clause 63 will be opposed by most environmental groups and recreational fishing groups, but the scientific process that is used as the foundation by Governor-in-Council to make the above regulations will be crucial and it is not described anywhere in the bill.

Clause 64 - a person authorized to deposit a deleterious substance under the above, must, when directed in writing by the minister, conduct any sampling, analysis, tests, measurements or monitoring, install or operate any equipment to comply with any procedures, and report the information required by the minister. So that is going to be our cost - if we are given permission or authorization, we could pay for all this science.

A very scary situation for us and, regardless of Ashton's fish lord comment this morning, my reading of the processing industry in the province is that it is in trouble. We are losing people in the industry, we are losing market share, we don't have enough resource, we are dealing with the exchange rate - it has been going in the wrong direction, we have gone from a 65-cent dollar up to 90 or 91 cents today - and heavy competition from China, a low-wage country. So anybody who thinks that the processing sector is rolling in money and is going to be able to deal with these issues, I think they are wrong.

Opinion: If a research analyst establishes that you have a deleterious substance in your effluent, you may still receive permission to operate and to deposit the substance from your effluent, but it will require a regulation giving you permission that details the conditions, the concentrations, the quantities that are allowed and you could be required to cover the cost of any sampling and testing. Exemptions through the regulation process will be required if it is determined you are depositing a deleterious substance in your effluent.

We are in no way here advocating the right to pollute. Our industry, whether you are processing or fishing, lives on the marine environment, and our observation of the problems that we have out there. I'll go back to municipal sewage and waste, agricultural runoff, some heavy industries. I'm a sea kayaker, I go around the coast and I see a heck of a lot of plastic everywhere - shopping bags, packaging, strapping - it's everywhere. I saw a scientific presentation on it, and in the marine environment, it breaks down into tiny particles that resemble plankton. The fish are eating it - and you know one of the problems we have right now is our fish are not growing and we wonder wondering what's going on in the marine environment, but I don't see this bill really tackling those issues.

What they've done is they have a project going on in New Brunswick and British Columbia and they're going to make that across the country in the fishery and they're going to go after fish plants - fish plant effluent - that's what I read here.

So I'll just finish off. Clause 63: " The Governor in Council may make regulations . . . (a) prescribing, . . . the definition 'deleterious substance' . . . (i) substances or classes of substances, (ii ) quantities or concentrations . . .(iii) treatments, processes . . ." and so on, but nowhere does it describe how that's going to be done and, if you're in our business, that's a frightening prospect.

[1:30 p.m.]

So it goes into all the fines that you can get. They're significant. I've outlined them there, the civil liability - and just one last comment and this has to do with the tribunal as well. In reading the bill, when you start talking about justice in the bill and sanctions, you have to remember that the bill talks about offences and it talks about violations. If it's talking about violations, it seems to come under the jurisdiction of the tribunal; if it's talking offence, it's court. So you can have a ticketable offence which may be $2,000, like a speeding ticket, or whatever, it's still court- related, and it seems to be minor. You can have a minor violation which you can pay - and if you pay within 30 days, I think to the tribunal, you get half price.

Nowhere in the bill does it really define the difference between what kind of contraventions will be offences and what ones will be violations, what ones will be major violations, what ones will be minor - this is left to regulation later. The biggest part of the bill - 110 pages - is talking about enforcement and administration. So when Sterling asked me about understanding the bill, certainly a lawyer or a judge reading that, I'm sure could probably make good sense out of it, but somebody in the industry, I guess we're looking at how's this going to affect us and I was just trying to see - I would like to know if you have a fish plant, who's going to deal with it and how, what the offences are going to be, and it's left to regulation, Governor-in-Council, later.

So, anyway, I'll stop with that. If you want to get into a discussion on the tribunal, I have read it several times and I have made some comments on it, but I've circulated those comments to members of the assembly here, so I'll stop at that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Denny. Are there any questions or comments?

MR. SPINNEY: I'd like to ask, because Mr. Zinck is here and he may know - in this Clause 56 that Denny has been alluding to here, I never really stopped to think of what this was saying. You read and you don't think. But, you know, we change the water in our tank houses big time, especially in the summer - we pump it in and we chill it, and . . .

MR. ZINCK: Well that's the scary thing, Ashton. As Denny pointed out in his presentation, this bill and that particular clause of the bill leaves such a wide-open opportunity for power, if you will, for the bureaucrats to decide what's right and what's wrong and what will be and what won't be. There's definitely an understanding that the bill has to be regulated in a certain manner, but when the bill goes so far as to suggest there could be fines in excess of $300,000 - under $300,000, as Denny said, they talk about indictable offenses and whatnot.

When you're running a small fish company in South West Nova Scotia, or anywhere else in Atlantic Canada, those things can be very scary when there's no definition to tell you what exactly is going to dictate how that comes down on us. Again my personal opinion - it's fair to say that I think it's unacceptable to use that type of

pressure because the whole section in the bill is filled with a threatening tone to something that we're all very concerned with. We're all concerned with the environment. As business owners we are all concerned about the environment and to think that the bill has to reference a threatening tone to get us to comply lacks respect for the industry as a whole. It goes further than the processors - we have been doing a lot of work with the fishermen with respect to the amount of debris that's going in the ocean like bait boxes, and Denny alluded to plastics and things like that.

We're already taking that initiative. It's not because someone came up to us and said hey, you have to do this now - that initiative was underway long before any of this legislation was put forth because, as a business community, it is the right thing to do. There is no doubt about that, and I think anyone who has their head buried in the sand on that environmental issue is going to fail as a business in the long run. No doubt about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Zinck. Anyone else who wants to speak, could you give your name - just for the record.

MS. BOUDREAU: Just to reiterate what Mr. Zinck has said - I think if we're looking at cost to our industry in the future, I think environmental cost is probably an area that we've all underestimated the amount that we would have to put in even to date. If we look towards the future, if we looked at one thing other than the cost of fuel that's going to affect our bottom line as harvesters, processors, the whole industry - it's going to be environmental. I think this whole section here is very crucial and I'm glad - again I want to reiterate that it's important that we have more than a few people looking at this bill to see how the overall effect is going to be. Like I said before, we look at it from where we're coming from, and if we don't have enough people looking at it from where they're coming from we may miss something that's very important. This is one issue, like Ashton said, he read it, and I read it - you know, nothing clicked. So it's crucial that we have as many people as possible.

MR. ZINCK: Just on that note, one of our fishermen approached us and we were talking about this and different aspects of the bill, and this section of the bill came up and he brought it to the table, which unfortunately there are no fishermen here today because it would probably again be brought to the table, I mean he was concerned about pumping the bilge in his boat, something that I didn't - we talk about trying to get an overall view - that didn't even occur to me, I was very much focused on my own situation. As Ashton pointed out, we pump sea water through our tank house, we obviously have effluent from our processing operation, and then all of a sudden he raises that issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions or comments?

MR. MORROW: Just on Page 18 of my presentation it refers directly to Section 76 (1) of the bill: "The Minister may designate any individual or class of individuals as analysts." I took that section - and Section 77 talks about certification officers - I took

those two sections of the bill and those are the people who are going to define what you will put in the water. I don't know who they are. Is this going to be done in a university, or is it going to be done inside DFO? Can we have faith that the science is going to be any better than the science we had with northern cod? It's a big issue, a big concern.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe it is a big issue, Denny, and I think that's what we have to come up with today at this committee. I think we have to come up with these questions to submit to Ottawa, to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and let him know what we don't know about this bill. So, with that, Mr. Zinck.

MR. ZINCK: I just wanted to make a further comment to what Denny was saying in a more broad view in respect to the bill. The analysts who are so-called, would eventually become public employees to carry out the analysis. It also refers to licensing officers. I would just like to point out that with the existing environment we have today, and this is certainly no disrespect to public employees, but with the process that we have today, whether we talk about licensing, whether we are talking about the analyzation of effluence, we have a bill that governs, and regulations that govern how we conduct business, and there are public employees who administrate that legislation, if you will.

We've had some experience in the past, particularly through DFO, the Inspection Branch of DFO, which is now CFIA, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, in that each individual inspector had the ability to analyze a situation with respect to regulations when a situation was to occur. In other words, what I'm trying to say is that an individual inspector could come into the plant, analyze a situation and come up with how he interpreted it needed to be dealt with. The industry evolved beyond that because of the workings between DFO and the industry in that we ended up with a system now where the industry itself, in some respects, governs how they are going to conduct business within the regulations. The inspectors come forward in order to make sure that what you say you were going to do is what you're doing and, assumedly, what you say you're going to do has to pass a certain criteria.

The point I'm trying to make is that we saw the faults in having public employees, if you will, or inspectors if you will or analysts, who have different interpretations of the regulations going in plan A, plan B, aboard vessel A, aboard vessel B, and making their own interpretation of what the resolve should be for any situation that occurs. Of course the result was inconsistency, and it ended up tying up the courts, it ended up tying up a lot of time.

It surprises me, within this bill, that it seems like DFO, using this bill, is reverting back to that type of situation where they will have a number of people out in the field at a low management level, if you will, interpreting the regulations and bearing down on the companies as to how they deal with the regulations based on a situation that may or may not occur.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Zinck. Are there anymore comments on this? If not, maybe we could go to something else. Any questions?

Mr. MacLeod

MR. MACLEOD: I guess my question to the different members here today is, if there's one thing that you can point to in this bill that really has you concerned - and I know that's making it very simplistic - if there's one thing that really has your attention and has your concern, I would like to know what that is. At the same time, if there's one thing that you think is really good. We have a variety of people from different industries and different backgrounds, and the problem with any piece of legislation, at the end of the day, is you have people who are on the East Coast and the West Coast, you have different forms of fishing, so it's very hard to come with a piece of legislation that is good. But, if we can identify some of the good things and some of the key things that are really what you think are the ones that would break the deal, so to speak, that would be helpful for me because I haven't the background that Sterling and Junior have when it comes to fishing. I don't know if that's too bold a question or not, Mr. Chairman, but that's sort of where I am.

MS. BAKER STEVENS: I think we referred to the one thing that we're all going agree to but I won't presume - it is Clause 30, where it says you cannot transfer it. My fishermen haven't read this, but they have heard that on the news or whatever, and that's the only phone call I got with this whole thing - and that was the transfer of licences, that's very, very important, it's number one, that's the biggest concern. If I had to pick one thing out of this - not to say there aren't many - that is one. For me, if I wanted to pick the best thing - and I find several things that are good - what I honed in on was the fisheries management agreements. I have been waiting so many years for this.

As an organization - multi-species again - every time, we start up to administer anything we need agreements with the fishermen and with DFO. So there are JPAs, that is one route to go; the other route is the fisheries will say, here's your quota, now you manage it. That's lovely, we have over 200 fishermen, how are we going to manage that, right? They said, that's your concern, it's not our problem. So as an organization, we have spent over tens of thousands, and it could even be close to $50,000 or $60,000 on lawyers in order to make up these agreements - twenty-odd pages, with our fishermen on each species, on every project we work on that they will agree to, it's a civil agreement.

[1:45 p.m.]

DFO will not back us up. If a fisherman disagrees with it, then we'll have to go to court. We can't go to DFO and say you told us we're co-management and you gave us this to do - no, they told us, that's between you and your fishermen, we gave you the fish now you figure out how to manage it. When I looked at this, this is what I'm more excited about than anything because we've never been sued, but you know we would have been if

we had been challenged - all it would have taken was one organization to lose in court hundreds of thousands of dollars and we all would have folded.

The way we do things, how we've been managing the fish these last few years - the Larocque decision, a prime example - we all folded, we don't know what to do. We have all these intentions, these good science intentions? You know how long it took for fishermen, scientists and DFO to get their heads together on how important this was and put hundreds or thousands of dollars into this fishery, and to invest in it? Many years, and with one court case that went by the wayside and we're scrambling, we're wondering how we're going to do this.

I'm very concerned with our snow crab fishery, where we put in over $500,000 a year for science and now, when we had our meeting, we don't know. Yes, we'll be grateful there is some money that was put into snow crab science - over $250,000 per year for three years - very grateful for that, but where is the rest going to come from and how are we going to do that is so up in the air. Our season starts in June and they do the survey of our fishery right after in the Fall, so that has to be planned. That money has to be generated, this has to happen. One court case, that's just one example, and I bet there are a hundred - but that's just, in my mind, right now very important.

As you know, the minister takes the science very seriously. Anytime that a quota increases or there is a reduction, it is all about science. He listens to conservation - that's what this is all about, the whole bill - conservation is all through it. Science is what helps you with that. Now, what are we going to do? I'm very concerned with snow crab because we've spent so much money on it - it looks so promising and, if we have a year without science, what does that mean? Do we go and start over again? If anybody is aware of science, you need to stay on the same course and do the same thing over and over again or else they are unclear and unsure and that goes up to the minister, they don't know if there will be more quota or not. In that instance, that was a very bad thing.

In my opinion - and again the details and interpretation of what this means when and if it gets passed - on what is a fisheries management agreement, to me I see the positive; I see something that is going to be very good for the industry as a whole. I might be wrong; I might be kicked into so-and-so when this is finally interpreted and they're going to say, oh, we got you now boys, you fell for that one. I don't know, I could be wrong about it, but I'm very excited about this particular part of it. So that's just my 10 minutes - somebody else.

MS. BOUDREAU: Well, I agree with Nellie on the science and the importance of our management; some of the techniques that we have developed with DFO that are positive. That doesn't mean that they all are because we still have tons of work to do there, but hopefully with that particular section we can have something that we can massage in to a workable plan. A concern that we have from the bill would be - and that has been mentioned by fishermen - the tribunals. They are concerned as to who will be

appointed to these tribunals - and not so much who will be appointed, but how they will be appointed as well. Who is going to participate in the selection? What is the selection criteria? Not only that, as Denny mentioned earlier, which offences are going to go to this tribunal? Is it just going to be some talking heads up there who are going to look at passing out some fines for a couple of short lobsters? Are they going to have some serious power and teeth that will support or reinforce or maybe enhance what we have in the federal court system right now?

You have a judge and he has just tried a case of someone who has murdered their wife, or their two children or whatever, have gone on a rampage and destroyed millions and millions of dollars worth of property, and the next case is a gentleman who had 50 illegal traps - not that a judge can't be responsible to look at both of those things, but you really have to weigh out what's he going to look at. Is that a serious offence? But within the industry yes, to us that's a serious offence.

So what exactly is the role of this tribunal? The information that's given here in this bill is very vague. Although we're not saying - I'm not saying - that a tribunal is not a positive step. In one way, it has some very good positive things that could come out of it, but if the process for selection and the responsibility of that tribunal is not very clear and going to reflect what it is we, as the industry, see what a tribunal should be doing, then I think we're wasting time, we're wasting money, and we could be set back; instead of ahead, it could push us back. I guess that would probably be the most glaring one that has come to the front for our organization.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone else?

MR. SPINNEY: Section 30 creates in the fishermen's minds a big void that needs to be answered. I, too, have had a number of phone calls over Section 30 when they read it in the news - a good many, they were very concerned about that. I, along with Nellie, agree with the co-management - and there are other areas in there that are favourable. To sit here and say that there are not good areas in it would be very wrong but, as has been raised here today - Mr. Morrow raised some sections here that I had just never realized the implications that would have, and as Mr. Zinck has even brought up - I have never even thought of bilge water. I mean I'm on the water all of the time and you automatically turn your pump on when there's water in.

These are areas that we really need to get in and see all of the implications that are there - understand it. The frightening thing of all of this to me is that we will not have access to make amendments. Even after there are amendments, think of the hours, the weeks, the years that are going to be spent in trying to write a regulation for all these sections and the many regulations that will come out of all of these sections. The concerning area there is, how are these regulations going to be written? Are they going to come out and say we consulted with you, and they go back and write out and put it into being that this is the regulation pertaining to this and that's what you said? Well it's not

what we said. It may have been something that was said that applied on the West Coast, but it's not applicable on the East Coast - or something that's applicable in Newfoundland and Labrador, but it's not applicable in South West Nova.

There's a lot of area in here that causes tremendous concern. On the other side, we do need a new Fisheries Act, but one that's going to be there for years and years and years, and we need to be responsible on how that comes about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ashton. Anyone else like to comment?

MR. LUGAR: Mr. Chairman, it's Jay Lugar with AFIA. I came here just to speak of one point, and the point that I made isn't necessarily in favour, or against, fisheries management agreements. Obviously, I have members who support them and the concept of them, my point was with regard to their implementation and DFO's use.

But I want to make one other reference that I didn't mention earlier - to how DFO, I think, has really elevated the role of these agreements in their future management scheme. It relates in part to something that Ashton just said. Whenever DFO is going to make regulations pertaining to the new bill, I assume their initial go-round will be to use all the existing regulations with amendments related to clause numbers, as necessary.

But in the new bill there is something, there's an element that eliminates from the normal path for adopting regulations, some aspects of this bill, and it's under Clause 210. Normally, when a regulation is proposed, it is made public and it has to go through the Gazette process. That whole process is called the Statutory Instruments Act, but Clause 210 exempts portions of the new bill from that process, whereby they publicize and seek comments on new regulations.

One of the areas that is exempt is the fisheries management agreements. Now, if you think about that in practical terms - and because Nellie mentioned them, I'll use the Eastern Shore Fishermen's Protective Association as an example here - purely hypothetical, if they want to now set up a JPA, or have some other form of co-management, they would do that directly with the department. There is a requirement in the bill now that if that is done under a fisheries management agreement - which would be the new way to do it - then it would have to be published. I think there has been comment here today about the fact that it should be widely published so people would realize what it is that it entails.

Now, if it were part of the Statutory Instruments Act, it would have to be not only agreed to it with the party but it would have to be published in the Canada Gazette, which is the government's mechanism for advising citizens of all sorts of things that are coming down the tube. Then there's a 30-day grace period, then a six- month delay, et cetera, a very complicated procedure.

So I'm not here telling you today that exempting fisheries management agreements from that instrument is a bad thing, I just want people to be aware of it because it means that as much as they want to be able to use it for their convenience, it also means other people can do things, and the minister can go off and make, if you will, small deals with small groups of individuals that may not suit a broader purpose.

So it's some clarity in how the minister plans to use FMAs in the different circumstances that he encounters today, that I think would help a lot of people as to how their situation would fall in under the current proposal.

The other thing I do want to mention is that in the clause that describes fisheries management agreements - and I'll point to it here directly, that's Clause 43 - with Clause 45, it includes some language that says if there is a fisheries management agreement and any provision in that agreement happens to be different than a provision that's in other regulations. There's a list of 45 or so different regulations that govern different fisheries, including marine mammals and fish in general, there are also some specific ones for individual species, if I'm not mistaken - just say there is a mesh size, and I think our mesh size in ground fishing is governed by regulation, it's possible that a fisheries management agreement under the new regime, for a small section of one fleet, whatever, as a class of persons, could have a different provision that is not consistent with the regulations, and Clause 45 states that the Fisheries Management Agreement supercedes, or "prevails", to use the word here, any other regulation.

Thinking of it broadly, the way the DFO is starting to have Fisheries Management Agreements and set up the overall management of the fishery is vastly different than what we know of today. The regulations will be there in place for everybody - and that's what we think, that they apply to everybody equally - but if you have a Fisheries Management Agreement it's possible that agreement will change the regulations for some people only. I think that is something that a lot of people have to, as much as we want Fisheries Management Agreements, you have to think about how it could be applied. That's my point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Jay. Anyone else?

MR. ZINCK: I think that in trying to answer the question, it's difficult to break down such a big document and specifically say the things you are favour of and the things that we are not in favour of. I think today we have probably focused more on the things we are not in favour of or things that are concerning us as opposed to those that we like, if you will.

[2:00 p.m.]

So I guess in my case it's fair to say, as a processor and a vertically integrated company in the industry, a lot of the bill seems to be taking us in the right direction. I

look at it as priorities, and as you go through the clauses you kind of prioritize in a lot of different ways - whether they pertain to you, how they pertain to you, and clauses that, quite frankly, you totally disagree with. Some of us have varied opinions on whether we agree with how that clause is or isn't, but there are some, speaking commonly, even around the table today there is a common feeling that certain clauses need to be revamped or rewritten - and Clause 30 is a good example.

Then there are other clauses of course where, as I said, some of us may agree, some of us may disagree - and the debate comes when thinking about the ensuing regulations, which is a another whole aspect. Ashton kind of alluded to that earlier - that the debating of the regulations will come somewhere down the road - but I think it's important that we have the structure to start with that, and that's what this bill is supposed to be. It's not supposed to be the regulations per se - it's supposed to be the structure that governs our fishery and the regulations are a follow-up in order to make the bill enforceable, if you will, or to integrate it into the industry. So you have those clauses which would be debated somewhere. It may be a good clause, maybe we don't disagree with how they are written, but we have a concern about what the ensuing regulations may be.

If I have one overall criticism of the bill, I think it's the open-endedness of the bill as a whole. It tends, at times, to give you the feeling that it is being very specific, only to leave you hanging with the unanswered question. Certain clauses will take you to a point - and talking about deleterious substances, it will take you to a point. It will speak again and again about this particular point, but does nothing to answer your question.

So as someone who is involved in this industry and someone who is looking forward to the generations to come, again I would like to speak personally. I have two sons. I expect, or I would like to think that possibly they may want to be in this industry someday. One is 16 years old and the other is four years old, so I'm looking at several generations down the road. I feel, as I said earlier, that we have fiduciary and due diligence responsibility to make sure this thing is right, and for me, as a person involved in this industry today, to put any sort of a blessing on this and not feel good about it is doing myself and the industry an injustice. That being said, we're only a small representation of the industry as a whole but I think it is fair to say - regardless of our differences of opinion - there is a common sense out there within the industry that this bill needs some work. If it goes to second reading and then it is to be debated after that, or consultations take place after that, I think we have a legitimate fear because of what we've seen in the past, that it may end up being too little, too late.

I don't mind saying this. I mean, over the years, our industry has been exposed to situations where the government has said to us, in theory, trust us, and it hasn't always worked - as a matter of fact, more often than not it hasn't worked. So I think possibly the government will say that they went through a consultation process and that's where a lot of this bill came from. Well I don't think their consultation process was good enough

and I think the industry is telling them that. If they have any respect for us at all, they will recognize that and say, okay guys, you're not throwing the thing right out the door. We have enough respect for you to give you an opportunity once again to put some input back into this bill now that we have a written document in front of us, and then let's see where it goes from there.

If we don't do that and we push this thing through Parliament, whether it be the Members of Parliament or even your provincial responsibilities, we push it through for the sake of pushing it through and getting it done and over with because up until now there has been a lot of time and effort put into it - just to do that, as far as I'm concerned, is not good enough and we expect more from those who represent us in the Legislature and in Parliament in this country. That's all I have to say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

MR. MORROW: I'm not going to pass the opportunity, but certainly Clause 30.(1) - I'd like to see that worded to reflect reality here in Nova Scotia, or in Canada, and not some place like Maine.

In regard to the owner/operator and, I think, the need for some flexibility, I have to agree to disagree with my friends Jennie Boudreau and Ashton Spinney and I'll just give you a couple of examples. One fishery, the silver hake fishery - it wasn't that many years ago that Cuba and the Russians did that fishery. It has been Canadianized, and it was Canadianized with our money and our companies - companies in our association. Our purse seine herring fleet was rationalized, not with government money but with industry money because the resource could not stand the amount of effort that we had in it.

So people have put money into that, and it is fine to say you knew the risks and so on - well, we didn't ask for government money. We developed the industry and kept it going and now to come out - and with DFO's participation in this too, by the way - and tell us that somehow you're bad guys, I can't accept that so I think there's going to be a need for discussion here. Concerned about the political pressure that's being applied behind us and how it could affect the industry, for example, in South West Nova - there aren't many parts of this province where we have a processing industry left. South West Nova is where it's concentrated - I will be frank about that.

Clauses 56 to 72 that I talked about this afternoon, the fact that the process is not described in the bill is a big concern. Then finally on the tribunal - is the tribunal justified? We're moving justice away from the courts and creating another bureaucracy that's going to cost us money. So nobody's made the case - maybe the case is there and my gut feeling on reading is maybe this is a good thing. But it is going to cost money, it's going to be a different system, and you know we could spend time on the tribunal - I think

there are things to understand in it before you make a judgment on it, but nobody has made the case that this needs to be done.

I agree with Nellie and Ginny - I think the fisheries management agreements have the potential to put some legs under co-management. It also can do what Jay is talking about - it can create favourites and non-favourites in the fishery, and anybody in the industry who doesn't have suspicions of the bureaucracy, I don't know who they are - we all do. So there is some concern.

So, finally, what's going to be the consultation process here? If it goes to second reading, if you take, for example, Clause 30.(1) - can we reword that to reflect reality? If we can't, then in our view it shouldn't go to second reading. It should be hoisted and let's start again, and if we have to survive with the old Act, we'll survive with the old Act. But to railroad something in place, I think, with a clause like that in it, that just basically avoids reality, and to me that's not good legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Denny. Would anyone else like to comment on that?

We have the Assistant Deputy Minister of Fisheries here. Any comments, Greg?

MR. GREG ROACH: Thanks, Mr. Chairman, I suppose I could make some general comments because certainly I heard things today referenced to the provinces and their involvement in the whole bill, so I'll speak a little bit to that.

The provinces were very, I guess, supportive if not downright urging the federal government to introduce a new Fisheries Act, and I would say it has been my observation that many of the industry members have been the same in the last number of years. Some of the Fisheries meetings with ministers, oh, in probably the last three or four years, the provincial ministers have said to the federal ministers - whether it was the previous government or the existing government - that we need a new Fisheries Act and, you know, get on with it. The last time anyone had a go at it was in the mid-1990s and that didn't work out very well, as many of you in this industry remember.

So there was pressure, lots of pressure, on successive Fisheries Ministers to introduce a Fisheries Act. So we have a new one, and I guess I just want to reflect that because we're hammering away at the people who put this in right now after hammering away at them to put one in, to introduce something. So I just want to put that on the record. There was quite an urging from all provinces, not just Nova Scotia, right across the country.

I've got to address four kind of concepts as to why that message came from the provinces, and I'll speak a bit from Nova Scotia but also for some of the other provinces. One is the sanction idea, and that's tied up in the tribunals and other administrative tools

that this bill will enable right now. Many of you in South West Nova remember sanctions, and there was a court case in Quebec that threw that out. Basically what we had is a situation where, as we have today, people can be continuous violators and gross violators of the Fisheries Act but they're going to be back in year after year after year. This particular tool is basically something that will say, okay, if you're going to play it by that rule, you're going to get kicked out of the industry.

Now we can sit back and say, well, what if it's a bureaucrat who doesn't like anyone who catches small lobsters, so he's going to remove his licence. Well, of course, that's a concern. That's an extreme example but we've raised that with the DFO officials and they are very concerned about consistency in application of any sanction process and they fully intend - at least they told us - to work with industry and the provinces to make clear guidelines about how a sanction process will work and these tribunals will work. So maybe it's naive to believe that, but I don't think the intent is to introduce new legislation to hurt the industry and to cause further damage. But that sanction process is something that I've heard public officials speak about, I've heard industry people speak about, and certainly the provinces have said we need to allow a situation where people who are not breaking the rules can succeed here. So if the chronic violators are in the industry forever, we're going to have the problem forever. So that's one major area that we've been demanding change and it's in there.

Another major area is referenced here several times and this is the management agreements. The Larocque decision put the kibosh to those management agreements and basically - under the present scenario - if an association that represents 85 per cent of the fishermen in a given fleet made an agreement with DFO, the 15 per cent that are outside there is no tool right now except the regulations within the fishery to make those people adhere to it. So the management agreement is out the window, it's like what Nellie was talking about, you would have to get almost a signed agreement from everyone and then the association has to take them to court.

The new Act will allow the minister to get into binding agreements with the entity that represents the majority of the fishery, so that is not a minority view. The way described to us - and they may be lying to us but if it's good faith, it's good faith - the intent of that and the regulations they plan to build around that is that if a recognized entity, for example, the Area 19 Snow Crab Fishermen's Association - and they have probably the longest standing fisheries management agreement of any group in Nova Scotia - their's is now in jeopardy because of this. In the future, this particular clause or this particular approach will allow that to happen, so that's a thing we've been asking for and we've been getting and it's in the bill.

A third point that I guess we didn't speak very much about here today, but you might note that the bill is full of federal-provincial agreements and equivalency concepts. The idea with that - again we're not going to be conspiring to try to hurt our fishing industry, that's quite to the contrary, but it's a situation where we manage the non-

recreational sport fishery. We do a trout through an agreement, but what if someone came forward to DFO and said the province is screwing up on trout harvest in such and such lake and under the Fisheries Act, and you, fishery department, have to come and address this?

[2:15 p.m.]

That doesn't happen and likely will not happen in Nova Scotia, but there have been cases in the interior provinces where the provinces have been administering regulations in good faith, and have been doing it for years, but interest groups would go forward and use the Fisheries Act to say, DFO, you are not doing your job here and the province does not have the authority to do that. So all of a sudden, you would have these provinces saying, we've spent millions over the years to regulate something and now the province has jumped in because you have one interest group in it - that's what the old Act had an open door to do.

The new Act, from what we've been told and what the provinces pushed for - largely the inland provinces - allowed for the Fisheries Minister to say if there is another level of government that is enforcing a regulation, or Act or rules that are equivalent to what we want to do, we will stand down and let that take priority. Now if the province doesn't do it or backs out of the game, then they jump into the game, but it basically gives a legal means to allow that streamlining to take place.

Just one other major one that I want to mention here, and this is the transparency thing. If you recall, the Prince Edward Island Government recently took DFO to court and they said we're sick and tired getting the "one of" regulations or decisions - one minute it might be Newfoundland and Labrador gets an allocation decision and they're doing great, and the next one something will come to favour Quebec and it will be great for them, but Prince Edward Island said we haven't had one in a long time, and they took DFO to court. The new Act has the enabling intent to have a transparent approach to allocation, so it's not these backroom one of decisions that aren't really explained except for who happens to lobby the hardest. There would be an established set of criteria the minister will use, and his officials will use, to make these allocation decisions.

Those principles are the things we've been hammering away at the federal government - not we as in just Nova Scotia, but we as the provincial governments - to try to address that. So those are covered in the bill.

There are a lot of very vague things in there. There are a lot of vague things about the environmental issues, about the habitat alteration, destruction and disruption. There's a lot of concern about the effluent treatment and how that affects our fish plants and that sort of thing. We have to work all those details out; however I think the intent - at least I was lead to believe - the intent was to protect the fish resources and to protect the fish industry. There are a lot of people who can put a lot of effluent out there that can hurt our

fish stocks. I think even if we are doing it ourselves in our industry we would want to stop that, so those sorts of details have to be worked out.

Again, even on the "may" and the "shall" part - the "shall" or "must" is really restrictive in your options; the "may" gives you some flexibility. Those of you who are familiar with the Species At Risk Act, SARA - it is full of "shall(s)" and "must(s)" and it really has boxed us into a lot of corners.

You'll see may in there on aquaculture, you'll see may in there on fish buying and fish processing. Those are all provincial jurisdictions, but there are cases like aquaculture in Prince Edward Island, where the province doesn't do it - aquaculture offshore, maybe around Sable Island or who knows where down the road - outside of provincial jurisdiction. The same way with fish processing on vessels at sea, fish buying and processing with transfer at sea. These are outside of provincial jurisdiction, so the bill is intending to capture this stuff where the federal government may not have legal authority to do that now - that's our understanding. All this will happen in discussions back and forth with the provinces.

Clause 30 is a huge problem for everybody, even with us, and that was raised. We've raised it on occasion, and the members did when we raised it with Minister Hearn, the Fisheries Critics and our minister very recently, and we were told on that one that that was lifted word for word from the existing fisheries regulations. The intent - and they gave us some commitment to clarity on that, and we hope that they will clarify it - is to have the same application in that today licences are not transferred, they are reissued, but a harvester can go in and request a transfer or request a reissuance and DFO will reissue to an eligible harvester, according to their request. They told us again, and the minister himself told us, that they intend to carry out that policy exactly the same as they are today, and also they said that they would put clarity words in that - I think even on your urging, Sterling - and we expect that will happen.

So as we go forward, we've got the second reading if it's not hoisted, and that's when we go to the committee stage. Our minister has made a commitment to work with his colleagues here in the House, and with the other ministers in Atlantic Canada, to go forward in second reading to address concerns.

Industry has that alternative and hopefully industry will do that. Where there's no clarity, that's where we can ask for clarity and ask for change, and if at the end of the day it's still unsatisfactory it can be voted down for third reading. If we don't get the second reading, then the Minister of Fisheries - Minister Hearn - said if it's hoisted, it's gone, it's dead. I guess that's the thing we're facing right now. I guess it's been our approach that we want to address all the uncertainties, address all the lack of consultation and try to clear up some of these clauses that we really don't know what they mean, but we need a new Fisheries Act - so we can go to second reading, try to fix them, and if they don't get fixed then the bill can be voted down. If it doesn't go to second reading, then we could be

another twelve years before we see another version. I guess that's where we are in the province.

I've certainly taken notes of all the concerns I've heard today, but I guess I wanted, just for the record, to mention how the province has approached it to date.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for that.

MR. BELLIVEAU: I'd like to address the member representing the provincial government. I have a couple of motions, Mr. Chairman, and I'm going to wait for the latter part of our meeting today before I table them, but the comment I want to bring forward is Greg's comment about consultation. To me, there is this perception out there that Canada-wide consultation has taken place on the new Fisheries Act. I'm a bit uneasy, if not upset, with that comment and, Greg, I think you alluded to it that fishermen, especially on the Atlantic Coast, have been consulted, and I take offence to that comment on the new Fisheries Act - and there is the underlying statement.

Fishermen and industry have been consulted on the policies framework dealing with fisheries policies and they have been consulted on owner/operator - I can go on and list a number of policies that people have been consulted on - the question I am going to direct to Mr. Roach is, can you identify locations, can you identify groups that have been consulted on the possibility of creating a new Fisheries Act?

That's a whole different kettle of fish here - pardon the pun. We are dealing with the whole Act that is over 138 years old; we are not dealing with specific policies. Fishermen and organizations over the last 10 or 15 years have consulted in good faith on particular policies, but they didn't go there - and being misled - thinking that they are dealing with all these particular clauses, and everyone around this table today has made reference to Clause 30. One of my motions, Mr. Chairman, I will pre-warn you, is dealing with that clause.

The point that I'm going to try to finish on - and hopefully Mr. Roach can elaborate on this - is if there was consultation on this new Fisheries Act, it would be clear that every one of us has identified that clause. To me, if that consultation took place - and I would love to have the name of these locations where they went and contacted their different groups - that would be the first clause that would be picked out and identified. I need to know, for the record, when we had the opportunity in South West Nova to discuss a new fisheries policy.

MR. ROACH: Thanks, Sterling. If I suggested that DFO did adequate consultation with the fishing industry, that certainly wasn't my intent. I didn't think I said that, but if it was construed as my saying that it was not what I meant - I was speaking to the consultation with the provincial governments and the provincial fisheries departments, and I can speak to that. We have raised the concern to the federal

government about the need for consultation with the fishing industry; we have raised it on several occasions.

Now, to be fair, the federal government has consulted with the provinces on several occasions, and I can just say from the provinces, because that is who I will speak for, last summer, for example, we had three days of meetings with all provinces in Ottawa to deal with all components that would go into the Fisheries Act - the freshwater components, the habitat components, the licensing components. We did not get any text because that is the law that the Fisheries Department has to work under DFO, that they can't distribute text before it's introduced into Parliament. So what we did was, we chatted, in detail, about this whole idea of the federal-provincial agreements - what might be covered, what might not be covered, and that sort of thing.

Now when the bill was introduced in the House - I think it was in November or December, somewhere in that time frame - we were then given the text, and we have had some bilateral discussions with DFO and we have had Atlantic discussions where the Fisheries Departments from several Atlantic Provinces would meet and consult with DFO. So the provinces had, I guess, a degree of opportunity for consultation before the text was introduced, and after the text, and we have stressed that the industry has to get further consultation - we stressed it and we stressed it and we stressed it.

Hopefully, if meetings are held, people will go. That has been a problem, as well, that there have been a couple of events that haven't been all that well-attended; however that doesn't mean they have to stop trying to get the message out from DFO to industry and discuss these factors. So we keep stressing that requirement. Again, I'm not trying to defend DFO here. DFO has said it's enabling legislation, and when we go forward with regulatory and policy development to support it we fully intend to consult with industry. So that's their message, and they should clearly state that publicly to the industry so that there would be some guarantee when the time comes down to it, if we ever get there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Greg.

MR. MACLEOD: I would just like to try to get a point of clarification for my own mind because what I understood and what I think I heard here today was that Clause 30 is a big concern for everybody. I have also heard today that Clause 30 was taken directly from the Act that has been around for 137 years. I guess my question would be - if it has been around for 137 years, it goes back to the point that nobody has been reading the Act anyway and so for anyone to state today that this is a surprise and it should never have been part of that because of consultation - well, that consultation apparently hasn't taken place for 137, 138 or 139 years, depending on which one we are going to work with.

So what I'm saying I guess is, and the fishermen in my area, the one concern that I've heard from them time and time again is about Clause 30, but it is not something new. It was there anyway in the original Act, so even if the consultation had taken place that

was there and it has been there. Now I'm not saying that it shouldn't be removed or it shouldn't be clarified, and I did understand from what Mr. Roach said that there was an opportunity for you to speak directly to the minister and ask for that clarification, and I think that is a good thing.

I don't think it was something that came out in this bill, I guess is what I want to get on the table. It was something that was there all along and, again, one of those situations where we are all guilty of not paying as much attention to it as we probably should have, if I understood what I heard here today.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that because I think for the record, and for history, this is a valid point. The point that I'm trying to make is that the present government has made a lot of reference to the consultation process of this new Act and I think everybody - I have set the hook and I'm going to reel you all in here now - if there was proper consultation done on this bill, as so suggested, that Clause 30 would not be in the bill. That is the point I am trying to make, and I think everybody is making it very clearly. I appreciate the time to do that, and I look forward to making a couple of motions to recommend to our Resources Committee.

[2:30 p.m.]

MR. ROACH: Just to speak on that, I think DFO have put that in by intent, it wasn't by accident. When it was raised they said yes, that's exactly what it means, but we are going to continue to exercise our re-issuance in the same manner as we always have. I think we definitely want to get in front of those folks and let them speak to that, because when we raised that they make no apologies, that's what it is there for. Now what they have said, Sterling, is that they would put some clarity that we're going to continue to re-issue based on our traditional methods of reissuing, but I haven't heard any apologies from them on that clause, because we did raise it.

MR. TERRY ZINCK: It's getting late in the session here and I'm trying to get my head around all that. The fact that they're saying that particular section is 138 years old - it was written in the 1800s - presumably in their minds then it's applicable today, and then to suggest that they are going to regulate that clause the way it is today, the way it has been for the last number of years, which is contrary to what the clause itself actually says, does not make any sense to me at all. If they recognize that it's being regulated in a manner that is contrary to the clause, why wouldn't they make an effort to change it to reflect the order of the day?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Denny.

MR. MORROW: To add to that, when things go to court, the wording in the bill gets very important. It's fine for a bureaucrat to say, this is my interpretation - and rest assured this is the way it is going to work - but when things go to court the government

lawyers quote what is in the Act and that is what they make their arguments on, and that's why we want to see this updated to fit modern reality. You pay $500,000 for a licence - there is some property there and there is an expectation that you are going to be able to transfer it. Boy, I sure wouldn't pay $500,000 for something that I thought 15 years from now might not be worth anything - and when I read that clause of the bill that possibility jumps out at me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Jay.

MR. LUGER: I'm going to jump into an area that is not directly applicable to the reason why I'm here, but just because we are around the table.

Thanks to the clerk of the committee, there was some documentation available to us that I actually hadn't seen and I think you've taken most of this from the DFO Web site, if I'm not mistaken. There is a section where they try to clarify what they mean by licensing - and I'm not here supporting or recommending this view, but I'm just reiterating what the department has said about this one point.

It's hard to describe all of these things, but it's under their documentation called Elements of a New Fisheries Act Discussion Document and it's one called licensing and is on Page 3 of that. Under Loss and Withholding a Licence, they talk about the new Act declares that licence is a privilege and not property rights, that it's not transferable, as we've discussed here today. However the minister's licensing policy is set out in regulation - "continues to authorize the reissuance of licences." I think the general point of the matter is that if they plan to use those current practices - and I think they are practices as opposed to the regulations - then why don't they put that in the Act and say it's not transferable, licences can be reissued, and spell it out clearly so that we don't have all of these concerns? In that way they're also bound by that same provision - so I think that's consistent with everybody's point around here.

MS. BOUDREAU: I agree with what Jay has said. I think to remove it would be a little hasty on our part. To clarify it - most definitely. Have it as clear as they possibly can make it so that there's no misunderstanding as to what they mean and as to what we are going to be regulated by. That way everybody's on the same page, and very little room for misinterpretation. That works, especially as everyone around this table has brought up that Section 30 is an issue - then spell it out to us, make sure that it is clear. As far as removing it, we don't agree that it should be removed from my group's point of view, but it should be clarified.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any other comments or questions?

MR. SPINNEY: On one of the minister's fact sheets - and I'm looking for the date, I can't get the date, it's not on this page, it's on the cover sheet, it's not on this one - it's why our licence is a privilege and not a right, and this is the comment made: The

licence issued to a person who meets the eligibility criteria is not transferable, and it goes on to say that the minister must assess someone's eligibility on a case-by-case basis before granting a licence. That's the comment they make. We need to have that clarified in Clause 30. I don't know why it wouldn't have been simple to put that in, put a Clause (a) or (b), or (1) or (2), whichever one is there, but I mean I think it would be that simple.

MR. BELLIVEAU: I'm going to make two motions. I'll make one so we won't get lost in the object of what we're trying to do here with two motions - not to combine them, there will be two separate motions. The first motion - I will make the motion that the comments and highlights of today's discussions will be summarized and recommended to the provincial Resources Committee for their support to draft a letter to the honourable Minister Hearn, Department of Fisheries and Ocean, and the Fisheries Standing Committee to review these concerns raised here today. I make that a motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion on the floor. Do we have a seconder?

MR. MACLEOD: Sure. I second that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

MR. LUGAR: Are you talking about a motion of this working group or are you talking about just among the three members? (Interruption) The committee, that's what I thought. It's a motion of the subcommittee, so you're not looking for comment on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I wouldn't mind having your support on this, I mean . . .

MR. LUGAR: I'm not saying aye or nay . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: . . . the three of us can do this without any support. I was just hoping for support from you, I guess.

MR. MACLEOD: I think that wouldn't be a bad idea on the record to show how the round table felt.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

MR. BELLIVEAU: The second motion is to recommend to the Resources Committee that Clause 30.(1) of the new Fisheries Act dealing with transfers of licences,

that particular clause be reworded. I have the definition that is a request for transfer that was, and I don't have that particular wording here with me, but the very first press release reflecting the present status of that has clarified that position, not as stated, so I'm asking that we recommend to the Resources Committee that they again send a letter to Minister Hearn to reword and clarify that particular clause, and if we need - I'm searching for the wording here because if we need all-Party support, then the letter needs to reflect that.

I don't want this to be lost on some kind of technicality that we don't have all-Party support. The letter should be drafted, so this is one clause that's going to be re-drafted, because this is evidence here today that everybody is concerned about that one particular section when it's dealing with transfer of licences. I'm looking for some assistance in getting the wording of drafting the letter, and hopefully we can get that direction from the Resources Committee of how we want to do it, but this is just to recommend that this particular section be reworded and clarified.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Should we, in a motion, be picking out just one clause of this? I've got a whole list of problems here that I believe maybe should be reworded, that the whole bill needs . . .

MR. MACLEOD: I guess, Mr. Chairman, if I could - my belief would be that we can only send a recommendation back to the Resources Committee and then the Resources Committee, after debate, would have to decide on whether or not they were in favour of sending a letter off on what they would be able to do. We can certainly show the desires of this subcommittee, and one of the desires that I heard around the table today was on Clause 30. I think that's the one we should focus on because that's one where there seems to be agreement all the way around the table.

At the same time, once that motion is made, the Resources Committee has to make their mind up as to how they're going to proceed with the recommendations of the subcommittee. I would be in strong favour of Mr. Belliveau's motion to get this back to Resources, and again with the support of the round table, maybe that letter could indeed come from Resources, but at the end of the day this is only a subcommittee and it has to come from the Resources Committee, I think.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're right. So there is a motion on the table.

MS. BOUDREAU: I think the other thing we need to be clear on before we look at Mr. Belliveau's motion is: Are we asking that clause be reworded or clarified? There is a difference there. We have to make sure - be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. And I'm being careful what I'm saying that we're asking for. We are not asking, as the Guysborough County Inshore Fishermen's Association representative, for that line to be reworded, we want it clarified - and there is a difference.

I don't mean to complicate things - believe me, I don't - I just want to make sure that . . .

MR. BELLIVEAU: If I could - if I had my briefcase here, I have the clarification that you're looking for from the minister. The minister, in his very first press release, clarified that position, so we're stumbling over wording here, and that's what we're looking for - clarification. The intent of that particular section is uncomfortable, and what I'm trying to say is if we had the clarification which the minister offered, the whole industry from coast to coast would be more comfortable.

MS. BOUDREAU: Yes.

MR. BELLIVEAU: So we're playing with terminology here.

MR. MACLEOD: Maybe just reword the motion saying you want to have a motion stating clarification as described by the minister in his first release as being . . .

MR. BELLIVEAU: That's what I was trying to say . . .

MR. MACLEOD: That was the Cape Breton translation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Zinck.

MR. TERRY ZINCK: I have difficulty supporting a motion in either respect. I certainly would not want to support a motion to reword a clause without knowing what those new words are going to be. As far as the clarification goes, clarification may be important but from my perspective, I have a problem with the intent of the clause as I understand it today. I'm not suggesting the clarification may not change that but I would not like to limit it to an understanding that I would be willing to support that clause once I have clarification of it because if I'm not satisfied with the clarification or, indeed, the clarification only reiterates what I have a problem with at this time, I certainly would not want to leave it at that as the end result.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Couldn't we take this motion back to our full Resources Committee? I believe, as I said earlier, we have five or six clauses in there that need full clarification along with Clause 30. I don't think we will get any agreement here today to change Clause 30 because I'm like Mr. Zinck. I believe we take the first motion back and then we take back these concerns. All these concerns, I believe, can be put into the letter. I have half a dozen written down here along with Clause 30 that need clarification, from pollution to the bilge water in our boats, right up the line here. The role of the tribunal is another one and so on and so on. I think they all need clarification along with Clause 30. So maybe this is something we can take back to our full Resources Committee and debate it there.

[2:45 p.m.]

MR. BELLIVEAU: I have to go with my instinct here. I think we're losing an opportunity, Mr. Chairman. I think that particular clause is universal, from coast to coast. I think that the minister has sent out, and I apologize for not having that particular press release here, but I think the minister, in fact, the standing committee chairman, Mr. Gerald Keddy, went to great lengths to clarify his position on that. I think it's an opportunity for this particular subcommittee to make a statement and I think it's an opportunity being missed that we do not send a direction to our Resources Committee. So I think that by losing this particular motion, it may send the wrong signal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We could pass that motion among the three of us to take it back to the Resources Committee because that's where the other motion is going anyway but we are not going to get full support here - I can see that right now - like we did on the first motion. But we can pass that motion to take that back to our Resources Committee.

MR. BELLIVEAU: You're the chairman, you call the vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is to take this motion back to the committee. Will you second that?

MR. MACLEOD: I guess before we do that I would like to say this: There are a number of issues that have come out of this. One of the concerns I would have is we start sending off letters to the minister and we have 17 different items, the important items will get lost. Now I'm not saying they are not all important but I think I have to agree with Stirling on this one point, that this Clause 30 seems to be something that has had an impact on everybody, it doesn't matter where you are. The clarification of that is important and if we are going to pass this motion, the thing that I would request from Mr. Belliveau is to have that statement of what the minister has said in lines of clarification available to the Resources Committee.

I would also request that it be sent out to all the members of the committee for their review so that they would have an opportunity, at least by mail or e-mail, to get back to you as chairman so that they could express their concerns because I think part of the reason there is some resistance right now is not knowing what the clarification wording is and so it's like buying a pig in a poke. You want to be a little careful as to what you are saying and I can certainly appreciate that. But by the same token, understanding what Mr. Belliveau is saying, it is an opportunity for this subcommittee to bring it back to the Resources Committee to keep it on the viewing plane. So maybe we could do it like that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So can we reword the second motion, that we take Clause 30 back to the Resources Committee and go from there? Let's take it back there, Clause 30. So you want to reword that?

MR. BELLIVEAU: No, I'm going with my instinct again. My instinct says to stay with the previous motion. That particular clause is universal across this nation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're not going to get that sent off unless our Resources Committee supports it anyway, so the first process is we've got to get it to the Resources Committee. So let's make the motion that we take the concern of Clause 30 back to Resources.

MR. BELLIVEAU: The intent of the motion is to bring this particular motion to light. I also want to identify the clarification, the wording that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in Ottawa had a press release on. Gerald Keddy - MP for South Shore-St. Margaret's, Nova Scotia - had a press release, a newsletter, and he highlighted the clarification on that particular clause. He went into great lengths and talked about a request for a waiver and how licences can be transferred.

This is a crucial component, I'm trying to bring that clarification to this particular section. It is going to be a comfort zone for everybody and I think that was highlighted all around here. That's the intent of taking this back to the Resources Committee. They'll naturally do the evaluation. We're not going to change the world between here and that Resources Committee - it's just bringing what we're trying to accomplish here. We had one clause with very poor wording - we heard that loud and clear - and we have a directional clarification from the minister and we also have clarification from the Fisheries Standing Committee Chairman that the wording is completely opposite of that present clause. That is what I'm trying to take back to that committee - the Resources Committee. That's the intent of this motion.

MR. TERRY ZINCK: In keeping with what Mr. Belliveau is saying, is it not possible for us to actually flag that as the issue? That the committee feels that the clause as written in the bill is contradicted by the press release or the clarification that has come forward through the press release on the bill itself and to indeed request clarification of that - how the two can contradict each other? I would think that may possibly spur one thing or the other, either a recognition that the clarification is not reflected in the bill or that they tend to move forward, as Mr. Roach indicated, that the bill is going to stay the same and will continue to be contradicted by the regulations.

Our fear with this is, and I don't want to rehash it but what it all boils down to is that at the end of the day, when someone has to make a judgment on this - whether it be a judge, a tribunal or whomever - the first thing they're going to say is that you're in contradiction of the Act. We've had examples here today - we discussed on other issues that we've been in contradiction of the Act and policy several times and continuously over the years and it has been accepted within the industry. Then, all of a sudden, the foot comes down.

Well, in this particular case, if the foot comes down, it could have a dramatic effect on whoever that is, as a group or the industry as a whole, that's standing in front of that judge or that tribunal at any given time. I continue to say it but I find it mind-boggling that the minister recognizes the fact that the regulations will contradict the Act. That doesn't make any sense. How can we be expected to support something like that? If the tables were turned and we were contradicting the Act it would not be acceptable, but because it is DFO and the minister doing it, as industry people we are supposed to accept that? Not me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Zinck. There's only one thing missing here today and that's the federal Minister of Fisheries. I wish he was sitting right here.

Okay, read the motion again and this will go back to the Resources Committee for their blessing first.

MR. BELLIVEAU: I haven't got it written down (Interruption)

MR. MACLEOD: I move that Clause 30 be identified as a major concern by the subcommittee and that it goes back to the Resources Committee for full consideration, and at the same time additional information be provided by member Belliveau regarding some clarification statements that were made by the minister and by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, do you second that? That's your motion, do you second it?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Yes. I'm just trying to get the wording comfortable . . .

MR. MACLEOD: What we're trying to accomplish is to get it back in front of the Committee on Resources and you are going to supply some more information.

The second part of that would be, in my mind, I would really like that information that you have to be distributed to the other members of the round table so they can have a look at the clarification statements, because I think their input as to what the clarification statements are would be important for the Resources Committee to know as they are making their deliberations on whether or not to send this forward as a concern. We have already identified, on several occasions, some individuals who have some reservations until they read the wording, so I think, in fairness, we have asked those individuals to be here today so it is only fair to go one step further and get their input on this last stage of it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a motion on the floor and it has been seconded and I agree.

Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

Sorry about that, but when you're fooling around with something here 138 years old, it makes me nervous too as chairman, but I enjoy being chairman, it keeps me out of trouble, I can see that. I don't say too much at all. Usually I'm sitting somewhere else causing trouble, but being chairman I have to be good.

I have appreciated this today. I read this bill over two or three times, in the dark, in the daylight and everywhere else trying to make heads or tails of it, and I have learned more today about this bill than I learned reading it three times myself - and this has been great. I think we should be looking at another meeting, to have maybe First Nations come in, whatever, whoever, to open the door to whoever may want to come in. There was a good cross-section here today with great input. I have really enjoyed it and I'm sure my two colleagues have too, because it has been of great concern, especially for Mr. Belliveau and myself. We went to Ottawa last week and met with Mr. Hearn and we wanted him to say that this would be clarified because it hasn't been getting clarified.

MR. MORROW: Mr. Chairman, there is a lot in the bill about rights and privileges, and just to express my own feeling here today is anytime I come I here to the Legislature I always feel what a privilege it is that we have democracy and to be in this building. I appreciate all three of you MLAs, your attention today, and I want to say it is particularly nice to see two fishermen in this Legislature - Mr. MacLeod, no slight there, but it is nice to see our industry get representation in this House. I want to thank all three of you, it has been a pleasure to be here.

MR. MACLEOD: I just want to be sure that Rhonda has the contact information for everybody? Then Sterling will get the information to Rhonda and she'll get it out. I'm really interested in the follow-up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The next full Resources Committee meeting we have which will be May15^th, which is another week or so, all this will go back to them. I'm sure we'll get their full support, but we just need to spell it out properly so we do get their full support. We will be getting word to Ottawa about this.

If anybody feels that we need another meeting in the next month or two in this Legislature similar to this, with even some different input from the different sectors, we would appreciate that feedback also.

Are there any other comments?

Thank you very much. I adjourn this meeting.

[The subcommittee adjourned at 2:58 p.m.]