HANSARD
Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services
Mr. John MacDonell (Chairman)
Mr. William Dooks
Mr. William Langille
Mr. Gary Hines
Mr. Charles Parker
Ms. Joan Massey
Mr. Wayne Gaudet
Mr. Keith Colwell
Mr. Gerald Sampson
[Mr. Keith Colwell was replaced by Mr. Harold Theriault.]
In Attendance:
Ms. Mora Stevens
Legislative Committee Clerk
Mr. Greg Roach
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries
Gulf Nova Scotia Bonafide Fisherman's Association
Mr. Dave Crawford
President
Ms. Kay Wallace
Community Research Coordinator
Guysborough County Inshore Fishermen's Association
Mr. Mike Newell
President
Mr. Eugene O'Leary
Vice-President
[Page 1]
HALIFAX, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2005
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
1:00 P.M.
CHAIRMAN
Mr. John MacDonell
MR. CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon. I call the committee to order, please. I guess we have regrets from Mr. Hines and, as far as I know, Ms. Massey was going to attend. I hadn't heard anything different. Anyway, my name is John MacDonell, the Chairman of Resources Committee and I am the MLA for Hants East. I will start to my right and let members introduce themselves. Then we will open the floor for you to make your presentation. I am not sure if you people tossed a coin as to who you want to go first.
Mr. Langille.
MR. WILLIAM LANGILLE: I was just going to say, I had been talking to Ron Chisholm and he's at another meeting over here but he might drop in if he gets time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Very good.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: So to whoever is going to start, would you please introduce yourself for the committee and then you can make your presentation.
MS. KAY WALLACE: My name is Kay Wallace and I am the Community Research Coordinator for the Gulf Nova Scotia Bonafide Fisherman's Association. To my right is the President, Dave Crawford. I'm going to give you a little review of the association and then I'm going to update you on a couple of issues that are facing the industry, not them all but ones that are close to their heart.
[Page 2]
The Gulf Nova Scotia Bonafide Fisherman's Association is a multi-species accredited organization which developed out of a need to be fairly represented in the Gulf region's fisheries issues. Our objective is to represent the members of the association in the unification, solidarity and welfare of all fishermen in the fishing industry through the following ways: by promoting and securing beneficial legislation for the fishermen; providing fishermen in the organization with fisheries-related services; promoting conservation measures among fish harvesters to ensure rational exportation of the fishery and its revival of its resources; by promoting a high level of collective living through study and socio-economic challenges affecting the lives of the fishermen, their families and their communities; and, also, by coordinating and affiliating with other organizations that have similar objectives to the Bonafide's.
Fishermen within the southern Gulf have strong convictions and are dedicated to ensuring their rights as fishermen are not destroyed or relinquished. The fishermen work to create their Bonafide status participation in the fishery, where vessels less than 15.2 metres are used.
By having certain criteria enforced in 1993 and 1994, Bonafide fishermen had to be registered as a commercial fisher, hold a limited fisheries licence and hold a category A lobster licence, and make 75 per cent of his or her income from fishing, or have landings of more than $15,000. This also included fishermen who obtained the Bonafide status from purchasing their lobster licence from another fisherman. In 1997, core and non-core replaced the status.
The Bonafide Association draws its membership from the southern Gulf region of Nova Scotia. The region extends on land from the eastern edge of Pictou County, including Antigonish, Guysborough - which is just Aulds Cove that falls into that region - and reaches up to the Inverness County line in Cape Breton. While the real region of Gulf Bonafide is large, its membership traditionally come from a smaller area, extending from Lismore East towards the Canso Causeway.
Since the mid-1990's, membership settled around 70, creating a recognized full association but issues such as fisheries management, policies, services and communication lacked effective strength within the system. The direct involvement of the members of the Bonafide Fisherman's Association guides the structure and builds the capacity of our association. The members annually elect an executive who will represent their interests at the fisheries management levels.
The executive consists of the President, Vice-President and Secretary-Treasurer. Volunteers from the membership at large assist the executive by representing the whole of the association on fisheries management for governing all species. These representatives report to the association and the association in turn reports the developments to the membership.
[Page 3]
[Page 4]
Today, fishermen are faced with a magnitude of issues and the following highlight
some of these issues that they are faced with on a daily basis:
The owner/operator policy. It is an important aspect to the survival and existence of the inshore fishery. The current policy ensures that the wealth generated from the fisheries resource is widely shared amongst the coastal harvesters and not concentrated among a few corporations who may be owned by offshore investors, and who will siphon the money out of the region and, in many cases, out of the country.
Separating the beneficial use from the ownership of the licence may not be breaking any laws but it certainly breaks the spirit of the owner/operator policy. This is a situation where we must consider what is legal and what is right. The owner/operator policy has served the fishermen well and should be supported. It cannot continue to serve the fishermen and their community if the present loopholes pertaining to the beneficial use is allowed to continue.
Ownership of the licence and the beneficial use of the licence must be inseparable. If we do not act now to protect the owner/operator licence, the working fishermen will lose their self-reliance as they fall under the control of the investors. Even though the resource will be harvested by Canadians on Canadian vessels, the potential is there for the wealth to be removed from the fishermen and their community, and placed in the hands of investors who have, in effect, concentrated the wealth of the fisheries in their own hands elsewhere.
Another issue of present focus to the harvesters is the professionalization and certification of all harvesters across the southern Gulf. This is an industry-led initiative that simply recognizes the skills and experience required to be a professional fish harvester in the industry. Our motto has been and continues to be, for fishermen, by fishermen. Where objections to this matter lies, is usually in misinformation and misguided representation.
This is a slow process where the Government of Nova Scotia is needed to act in a very active role to assist with this process. Immediate work needs to begin with the harvesters group of Gulf Nova Scotia to change the current legislation to best reflect the current work completed.
So in closing, I would like to thank you on behalf of the Bonafide Association for this opportunity to discuss these matters. I just want to really stress that these are not the only issues that are facing the industry and the harvesters. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I was wondering, Mr. Newell, are you going to make the presentation? You go ahead and then when you're done, there will be questions from the committee.
[Page 5]
MR. MIKE NEWELL: My name is Mike Newell. I am President of the Guysborough County Inshore Fishermen's Association. This is Eugene O'Leary, he is our Vice-President. Our association has been around since the mid-1970s. We represent, usually, small boat, multi-species, fixed gear fisheries, even though we do have some mobile fishermen amongst our association. Right now we have approximately 135 members from Guysborough County. It takes in from Mulgrave to Ecum-Secum.
I guess the services we provide for the fishermen is mainly as the go-between between DFO, the Department of Transport and the fishermen. Some of the services we do provide out of our office are licence renewals, personal registration, vessel transfers and so on and so forth. We keep track of fisheries openings and closings, and notify the fishermen of those. Transport Canada regulations, we try to keep the fishermen up-to-date on those things. Species at Risk is another thing on the agenda right now. Lobster tag distribution and log book distribution. We do quite a bit of research along the lines of lobsters, since DFO put in conservation measures but never put anything in place to follow up what impact it would have. As I say, the lobster research involves tagging of lobster, lobster larval studies, drift studies with buoys, juvenile trapping and try to follow what impact the conservation measures that's been implied in lobster fishery.
We do quite a bit of work with universities and other groups such as the Bonafide Fisherman's Association. Social science research, mostly that had to deal with the universities and I have a number of reports that they have put out that I will leave here with you. At times we have as many as seven people working out of our office. Last year we had a young lady from Portugal who was going to university and we met her at a meeting here in Halifax and she more or less adopted us, followed us home and hung around all Summer.
[1:15 p.m.]
MR. EUGENE O'LEARY: And it's all in Spanish so you can read it after. (Laughter)
MR. NEWELL: It's all there what she found out. She was studying co-management, I believe it was.
Oil and gas development, that's on both sides of us so we are involved with that. We help the fishermen with JPAs such as in the snow crab fishery. The temporary snow crab fishery was a big thing our association looked after for our fishermen. We put on quite a bit of training, MED courses, safety training, WHIMIS, whatever training the fishermen need we try to have it in our own community.
A point of concern for us is the lack of enforcement within the fishing industry as a whole. Right now it is a large concern where the lobster biomass has increased in our area and there doesn't seem to be very much, if any, enforcement. Another thing that recently came to our attention which is of grave concern is changing the meaning of community. In
Roman">[Page 6]
the past when you mentioned community, people thought of Canso, Dover, a place where people live. Now they want to change it to mean a group of people with the same interests or the same ideas and that can be devastating to a lot of places.
We know there have been people who tried to get away from the accreditation process, there were a few court cases lately and that's something the province does deal with. We feel it's a good thing, it enables all fishermen to pay into the association so that we can then, in turn, have the wherewithal to look after them.
DFO downloading is a big concern to the association. Every day, with very little resources, we are asked to deal with more and more things and that's a concern. Of course, as Kay mentioned, owner/operator. If it's not maintained and enforced it will probably be the complete downfall of small communities in the fishing industry. That is all I have to say. Eugene, did you want to comment?
MR. O'LEARY: No, that's fine for now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Langille.
MR. LANGILLE: For clarification, on the changing of the meaning of community, could you expand on that, changing the name of a community to a special interest? The reason I'm asking, who's making the request and who's receiving it? I never heard tell of this.
MR. O'LEARY: I just came back from a meeting in San Diego and one of our higher DFO officials presented it there as something that is working very well on the West Coast. It's a community of interest whereas shrimp fishermen would be considered a community rather than Canso. It's something that they seem to be pushing forward a little bit. I read over - what was that book you gave me? - a DFO folder and it was mentioned in that and that was about two years ago. There does seem to be something saying a community of interest is more important than community of place, that's where I saw it twice now in the last two weeks. I don't know where it's coming from but it's there. He pushed it down there at the meeting and he's, like I said, high up in DFO. It's Les Burke, that's who the person is.
MR. LANGILLE: Are you in favour of this change?
MR. O'LEARY: Definitely not. We are in favour of community of place. It seems to me that there is someone higher up in the DFO line that is in favour of community of interest. It's great for the larger, corporate people. One example would be the pollock fishery out west where most of the boats come out of Seattle and the fishing is done in Alaska. So that would really wipe out our communities.
Roman">[Page 7]
MR. LANGILLE: Okay, thanks for the clarification. I wasn't clear on that, on who is doing it and is responsible and who is receiving it there.
MS. WALLACE: May I add something?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure.
MS. WALLACE: Recently, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Antigonish contacted the associations similar to what Eugene and them were saying, to talk about community but they put it through to the organizations as objective-based management for the lobster management plan. It's a new process to the organizations. Basically, what they are trying to accomplish is, like you said, a new community of interest which would be the lobster fishers in the area and what their objectives would be for a sustainable fishery.
MR. LANGILLE: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sampson, and Mr. Sampson indicated he wanted some kind of preferential treatment today so we will try to indulge as much as we can.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Mr. Chairman, I asked for that because I have Joe Rambeau behind me and Dave Rambeau. Joe is from Smelt Brook and Dave is from Aspy Bay. For the mainlanders who don't know where that is, that is close to the furthest tip of northern Cape Breton. As Dave said, you have to come out to hunt the moose. Anyway, having said that, they are involved in the fishery and I asked them to come here today to give me some questions that I could ask and Anthony Hendriksen has given me some questions as a person heavily involved in the fishery in my own community.
Some of the questions that have arisen that I want to ask, multinationals financing fisheries and banks won't give any money for licences but, for example, Clearwater or the big companies will. So you go to the bank to buy a fishing licence and nobody will look at you so you are almost being forced to do business with the big companies. Anthony is saying that the buyback in the 1990s basically led to the collapse of the fisheries and then paying exorbitant prices to buy the licence back and then introducing them for free to the First Nations people. It almost seems to be the same thing that's going on now with the cost of the licence. What he was wondering, do you people have any dealings with the government and would the government do away with the trust agreements and look after financing of new licences so that they can police it? Have you been involved in any of that?
MS. WALLACE: I know on the Gulf side that we have, through the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters, which is the national voice and there are numerous organizations that feed into the Canadian Council, right now they are doing a fisheries sector study and it's soon to be completed, I believe at the end of February, and released. They have had focus groups all across Canada. I'm talking about other solutions that could happen to
Roman">[Page 8]
make the new entrants or the existing harvester accessible to the price of a licence, because some of them are extraordinary. Another thing DFO was telling us is that the licences, the cost and the value of them should go down because the agreement is almost fulfilled with First Nations.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Thank you. Another question. The fisheries have no capital gains limit. That has come up recently on the CBC Maritime Noon program and it has come up in the fisheries and for me to ask the question. Have you pursued the capital gains limit for fishers and if you have, has there been any response? For farmers, for example, to have a $500,000 limit and there is nothing for that so it is to the point you can't turn your equipment over to your son or your family or something like that. They just can't afford to pay the capital gains, let alone buy the licence.
MR. DAVE CRAWFORD: The Canadian Council is pushing for the same capital gains as does a farmer. Myself now, when I get out of the fishery, if I give it to my young fellow, I'm going to have to pay the government $100,000 to give it to him. That kind of thing actually puts the price of licences up even further, because you have to try to get more out of it so you'll have something left when you do get out of it. If it's $300,000, I have to pay $100,000 to get out of the fishery just by giving it to my son and this helps to jack up the licence price too. The Canadian Council is pushing to have this eliminated and once the Native situation is all fulfilled, the price of licences will go back down, there's no doubt about it.
Another thing that could probably be done is maybe the feds step in and set up a bigger buyback thing, like the provincial loan board has one, but have it federally and have enough money available so the younger generation doesn't have to go to these big corporations to get the money to invest in lobster gear. Right now in our area, we did a study a couple of years ago and the average age down our way is 54 years old so there is going to be a vast number of people retiring from the fishery. The access is not there for the younger, new generation of fishermen to get into the fishery. Doing away with capital gains and some type of federal loan board so these young people can have access to money, instead of going to these corporations, is going to be the end-all, I'll tell you.
In some places I know of they have eight, 10, 12 licences. When these guys die, who can afford to buy them? Once in a while they're picking these up but the amount of money it costs to buy them out, it's going to be the big corporations who buy them. That money is not going to stay in Nova Scotia, it's going to be up in Toronto somewhere, it's not going to be reinvested in our local communities. It's going to be going away like you sold to the company store. The fishermen got out of that with the co-ops starting up and things like this. The local communities are the ones that will suffer, small communities that feed the towns, feed the cities, that money is not going to be there, your tax money is not going to be there. It's going to Toronto, I'll tell you.
Roman">[Page 9]
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Another question. (Interruption) Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. NEWELL: Sorry to interrupt. The problem with getting loans from the bank or the provincial loan board is a fishing licence is only a privilege that the minister can take away at any time so the banks cannot use it as collateral. If there was some way the Minister of Fisheries would give up that authority and allow people to say, this is my fishing licence and I can use it as collateral, then the banks or the provincial loan board would be able to lend these fishermen money. Until that happens, the banks or the provincial loan board just won't take the chance.
You have a piece of paper and the market says it's worth $500,000 but tomorrow the federal Fisheries Minister can just say no, I'm cancelling that privilege and you're out of it so the banks are left holding the bag. As far as the $500,000 capital gains, we had that quite a few years ago but they took it away from us. As Dave says, it is something that should be put back in place. We've been pushing for it for years to politicians and anybody who will listen to us that we do need it back, just for the simple reason that if you do, as Dave said, give your children your licences, you're hit with such a tax bill that they have to pay it or somebody has to pay it. That is the major problem there.
MS. WALLACE: If the Province of Nova Scotia could look at a similar tax break to what Quebec currently has, provincially, it would ease up some on the sale of licences.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: What is the tax break that Quebec has?
MS. WALLACE: I believe it's $100,000. Greg, am I correct?
[1:30 p.m.]
MR. GREG ROACH: If I may speak as an observer here, the Quebec Government has a separate tax form for both the provincial and the federal taxes so they do a capital gains exemption on the provincial side. The Province of Quebec and the Province of Nova Scotia both requested that DFO work with the Canada Revenue Agency, or income tax folks, to put the same exemption in across Atlantic Canada. To date, there has been no positive response from DFO.
MR. CHAIRMAN: May we have your full name and title for the record?
MR. ROACH: I'm Greg Roach, Executive Director, Fisheries and Aquaculture Services for the Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Mr. Chairman, have you people had the time or occasion to deal with the definition of high abundance? It seems that during a period of what DFO called high abundance - this is when the part-time people were allowed into the crab fishery
Roman">[Page 10]
and whatnot - then when it comes to a time that maybe the stocks aren't as plentiful they want to get rid of these part-time fellows, rather than reducing the quota 1 per cent or 2 per cent on everybody, whether you are full time or part time. It seems the smaller guys get hit the hardest. Have you ever had any dealings with that or what does the department consider a definition of high abundance? Maybe this is more a question for Greg, not for you people.
MR. NEWELL: In the crab fishery especially, there were licences there and they had a quota of 55,000 pounds then the biomass exploded and the TAC went up. They increased the permanent fleet to 182,000 pounds, there was still excess quota left so they gave it to the temporary fleet. Everybody has a different view on that, my personal view is that at high abundance people should be allowed in and when the abundance is back down, it should be level set for the permanent fleet and everybody else gets back out.
DFO has now changed their mind on that, they want to make everybody permanent to some extent and they are working on that at the present time so this year, it will probably be all permanent fishermen with different percentages of catch and they will always be in there. What DFO is thinking is, if they make everybody permanent, somebody else comes along and they'll say no, the TAC is all being used up.
Human nature is going to say, that's not going to work because the crab fishing area is 23 and 24, the biomass went up. If the biomass goes up above what it is now, you're always going to have people wanting to get in. Politicians change and they're going to let them back in so even though DFO is trying to make it one nice, neat little package now, in the future I can't see it working, but that's usually when the biomass increases.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sampson, do you have a quick one?
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I would ask one more quick one and hold two for later, Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be very nice of you.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: You mentioned those in charge of professionalization. Can you expand on that a bit? Who would be in charge of that, would that be your organization or would each organization be in charge of their own, or would it just be led by one organization?
MS. WALLACE: It's a collection of all the accredited organizations in Gulf Nova Scotia. Just on your previous question, the Scotia Fundy region and the Gulf Nova Scotia region are separate. They have a head office for DFO and we have one as well. It's Gulf Nova Scotia and the Scotia Fundy.
Roman">[Page 11]
In the southern Gulf there has been a unity of Gulf New Brunswick, P.E.I. and the Gulf Nova Scotia harvesters, it's inshore, coastal and mid-shore. Previously, in Gulf Nova Scotia there have been two rounds of consultation, one where there has been a vote by core harvesters to see if they wanted to proceed with professionalization and the vote was positive. Now we're looking at constructing the governance structure and the bylaws to take back out to the harvester to then see if they'll validate it or if they have any issues with it.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dooks.
MR. WILLIAM DOOKS: Good afternoon. Just a couple of questions of clarification. When you talk about community of interest different than community meaning place, the disadvantage of that would mean that someone who has a vested interest in fishing could come into your zone, is that it? So someone from Halifax could go down to Cape Breton and fish, is that the danger? What's the disadvantage of that?
MR. O'LEARY: The large disadvantage is that the fleet would be centralized in an area, rather than in the ports, and none of the dollars would end up in the ports. Our port would eventually disappear because it would move in to, say, Halifax.
MR. DOOKS: Yes, but how regional do you mean? You mean anyone in Nova Scotia that's a bonafide fishing person would be able to go down in someone else's zone?
MR. O'LEARY: No, no, it wouldn't have to be Nova Scotia, it could be Atlantic Canada.
MR. DOOKS: Anywhere in Atlantic Canada and fish your lobster that. . .
MR. O'LEARY: It's possible that anything like this could happen.
MR. DOOKS: Is that what you're talking about when you talk about the definition change?
MR. O'LEARY: Yes. Definition of community, where a community of interest would be anyone who is say, for example, a shrimp fisherman. . .
MR. DOOKS: Yes.
MR. O'LEARY: It wouldn't matter where. . .
MR. DOOKS: From Digby?
Roman">[Page 12]
MR. O'LEARY: It wouldn't make any difference. They could move in and then just wipe that out. In a lot of the fisheries, the larger fisheries like the shrimp or the groundfish, that basically does happen. We don't want it to happen in the lobster fishery.
MR. DOOKS: How would you police that? Does your association give out quota for your zone, type of thing?
MR. O'LEARY: For lobster?
MR. DOOKS: Well, not for lobster but - is it just lobster you're talking about, that definition change, or for the fishery, in general?
MS. WALLACE: For the Gulf Nova Scotia area, it is presently just the focus on the lobster. In the fishery of Gulf Nova Scotia, it's broken up into LFAs, so a fisherman within 26A could fish anywhere, it could become a transit fishery. This is what we are really trying to avoid. Lobster is a very contentious issue right now among all associations.
Presently, the Bonafide Fisherman's Association is trying to have a division line inserted in the 26A line because the conservation practices that are being conducted by Lismore West down to the 26B line are different than those from the New Brunswick border to Lismore. Technically, I could go out there without the experience and hire somebody who has worked two years on the back of a boat, acquire the package and pay him a percentage of the landings, or what have you, to operate that fishery.
MR. DOOKS: Yes. But that's under the change of owner/operator.
MS. WALLACE: Right.
MR. DOOKS: There are just a couple of little things I'm having a problem clarifying here. So community of interest, change from community - meaning place - means that someone else from outside of your transitional fishing area would be able to come in and do your fishery there. That's the bottom line.
MR. CRAWFORD: Yes, the problem with that is, as she stated, we in our area - let's talk about our area - we have done lots of stuff for conservation.
MR. DOOKS: I understand that.
MR. CRAWFORD: We're the first ones that voluntarily went up in size to get the egg mass and stuff down and we continue to do that. Other things - we had three scientific programs done in our area last year alone.
MR. DOOKS: Yes, I'm familiar with what fishermen. . .
Roman">[Page 13]
MR. CRAWFORD: What I'm getting to. . .
MR. DOOKS: Sorry.
MR. CRAWFORD: . . .is that we need this division or else you will get a transit fishery and that's what's wrong. Like, on P.E.I., wherever the lobsters are, they go - whoosh - gone! You'll have 300 boats in one area and they clean it out. We want the line to - it is protectionism, there is no doubt about it. But we've got a different attitude. We want to conserve and kind of protect it more than the guys up the other area and there's no protection to keep them out of here, out of our area. After us doing all this conservation work - legally, there's nothing left - they opened up the Fisheries Act and got another zone put in there.
MR. DOOKS: As you talk to us today, it's talking about your lobster fishery mostly. Is this what we're identifying today? The presentation was mostly on the lobster fishery?
MR. CRAWFORD: Yes.
MR. DOOKS: Yes, okay. Owner/operator, now I will go back to that. So you're saying that owner/operator means that someone else could invest in the licence and have someone fish it? Is that what you're saying?
MR. O'LEARY: Not now.
MR. DOOKS: Not now but that's. . .
MR. O'LEARY: Not owner/operator. Owner/operator means the owner is the operator.
MR. DOOKS: Yes. Now, I have always been a lobbyist for government to lend money to fishermen for the purchase of their licence. I have had a lot of people approach me and they are able to get monies for their boat, of course, through the Nova Scotia Loan Board, but when it comes to their licences - and I have had that explanation before, that the licence, itself, is simply, I guess, a right, that they would have to have that and the federal minister could withdraw that but I don't necessarily buy that because there could be a program put in place that the fisherman who's buying the licence could partner with the federal government and if they do not pay, for the licence to go back and come up for sale for someone else because, usually, in most fishing ports, there is always somebody waiting for a licence.
Or it could be addressed as an ordinary small business loan. We know government assists small businesses in other places and they actually fail, or go bankrupt, and the government has to write those loans off. So I think there is a mechanism saying all that and
Roman">[Page 14]
making it lengthy. I think, if the government was serious, they could put in a mechanism that would safeguard their investment in that licence.
MR. O'LEARY: And that's why we've been talking to government people because we want you fellows to make this happen.
MR. DOOKS: Yes, well, I'm just sharing this. See, I represent the Eastern Shore which is sort of a neighbour, in one sense, to you, and a number of people who wanted to get into the fishery were unable because they couldn't secure the funding for the licence. The boat was not a problem.
When we talk about law enforcement, you're requesting more law enforcement. That means there is illegal fishing taking place, I would think. Who's doing the illegal fishing?
MR. O'LEARY: Crooks. (Laughter)
MR. DOOKS: No, I mean, are you talking day fishermen or people in the industry, itself, or people coming across the zone line?
MR. O'LEARY: Everything. There's a scattering of everything going on. Some places, it's in-season fishery in certain fisheries. A lot of the lobster is out-of-season. We only have a two month season. There's 10 more months that people can be out there. We don't see the presence - DFO cutbacks - we don't see the presence on the water, on the wharves. With the little number of people that the province has, we don't - they're supposed to be looking after the fish plants. That doesn't happen. Just the whole picture of - we find enforcement - whether it's crab, lobster, groundfish, the whole thing, there just isn't enough enforcement.
We're doing a lot of things like, we're working on programs that were science programs and stuff, and why are we doing it, if somebody can come out there and everything we've done, they wipe out. We just think that the most vital thing is enforcement, that we have to have it right across the board.
MR. NEWELL: And we need - this is one that both the provincial and federal government can do something about. The provincial government can go into the plants and in area 31B, 32, they're v-notching lobsters, and by rights, it's illegal for a plant owner to have them. Yet, they're being brought in, they're being sold. If the province was to step up their plant enforcement, that would stop some of that.
The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Canso, they live five minutes from the wharf but you never see them on the wharf. You don't see them on the water because they don't have gas to put in their boats. This winter and this fall - they have a diesel truck - they had to go to Guysborough to buy the fuel, which was 30 minutes, and they were
Roman">[Page 15]
only allowed one tank of fuel a week. So by the time you drove 30 minutes, got your fuel and drove back, what enforcement were you going to do? Enforcement is completely gone.
The type of enforcement is, as Eugene said, some are fishermen. In our area, we have what they call a window lobster which is a certain size lobster. One gentleman said, if I bring in one of those a day, it weighs three pounds. By the end of the year it gives me $1,500 more in my pocket, and there's no enforcement to stop him from doing that.
MR. DOOKS: You're not allowed to catch that lobster?
MR. NEWELL: You're not allowed. You're supposed to. . .
MR. DOOKS: Because of the size?
MR. NEWELL: It's a conservation issue.
MR. DOOKS: Yes, that's good, because different zones have different regulations.
MR. NEWELL: Yes. When DFO talked about this, I said, look, whatever you do, make sure it's right straight across the board, everybody does the same thing. What did they come out with? Everybody does something different. Our association, in particular, for some reason, was picked on and we got hit with every one of them. We're easy to get along with, I guess.
MR. DOOKS: I do thank you for your answers. The purpose of this committee is for you to come here and to express your feelings towards your industry.
One last question is, hand potting, does that still go on? It's a term that I haven't heard for a long time. That's when they catch the lobster with the pot, they bait the net ring - put it down, the lobster catches on and. . .
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: He sounds like he's speaking from experience. (Laughter)
MR. DOOKS: No, well, hand potting - are you familiar with that technique? I'd better not talk about it anyway, I'll give people ideas. (Laughter) But years ago, in the recreational fishery, hand potting was quite an event for the weekend. Anyway, thank you for the opportunity. Not that I entered into it. (Laughter)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Dooks. I think the Opposition can attest to how difficult it is to give people ideas. (Laughter)
Mr. Parker.
Roman">[Page 16]
MR. CHARLES PARKER: Thank you folks for coming in today and sharing with us something about your industry, the fishery. I come from Pictou County and, certainly, lots of fishing along our shores, from River John to Lismore, your neighbours right up tight. So your Bonafide Fisherman's Association is in Antigonish and Inverness Counties, primarily, is it?
MS. WALLACE: No, actually it's Antigonish, Pictou as well, Pictou County, and yes, into Inverness.
MR. PARKER: So right up to the tip of Cape Breton, really, is it?
MS. WALLACE: No, not so much - closer to Port Hood and areas like that.
MR. PARKER: Okay. Well, one issue that has affected your fishery and could vary
anywhere along the Northumberland Shore is the controversy and the danger around seismic testing.
[1:45 p.m.]
MS. WALLACE: Yes.
MR. PARKER: That's been in the news the last two or three years and just last Fall there was some scientific evidence that there is some damage being done by seismic blasting in the area near Cheticamp, I think, which I believe would be in your area, especially to the larvae of certain species of crabs and lobster, I believe, and maybe mackerel too, is it? I'm not sure.
MS. WALLACE: Its migratory path, yes.
MR. PARKER: But anyway, some evidence that that is harmful to our fishery and, as you know, our fishery has been here for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, if you go back to the Native fishery. I would just like your comments on what you feel has gone on there and whether you feel like, also the scientific evidence, that it's harmful to our fishery. I would maybe like your comment on that.
MR. CRAWFORD: The Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, I think the problem started there. It was stacked against fishermen. How many fishermen were on it? The agenda was always cut and dried before they were formed. DFO's own scientists said it's a bad place to do it. It's a migratory alleyway for these small larvae and that and they kill them stone dead but I mean it's done now, I guess, but if it comes up again or whatever, I think they should listen to these DFO scientists that are telling the feds. I think it is just a terrible thing they did but it was stacked against us from the get go.
Roman">[Page 17]
MS. WALLACE: I think we have to remember that with oil and gas it's not a renewable resource, per se, the fishery and the fishing industry off Nova Scotia, actually, contribute a lot to the Canadian economy and that cannot be forgotten.
MR. PARKER: It's a very valuable industry. It supported our coastal communities for hundreds, like I said maybe thousands of years, and all of a sudden to have that in jeopardy because of the potential of a few jobs in the offshore. It's a risky route to go.
MR. O'LEARY: As far as the oil and gas industry on a whole, one of the biggest problems we have is that we don't understand each other. They don't understand us and we don't understand them and we don't know how to do it. I have been involved in it quite a bit. We were over to Norway and Scotland visiting fishing groups and oil and gas. Greg was over with us and we were talking to a lot of people and I think that is one of the biggest problems is we don't understand. We don't know what is going on and no one seems to be really listening to us. When we say something, we have a fear and it just keeps being pushed aside, you know, I'm not going to pick on politicians but sometimes politicians have other things that are more important like jobs and so on and so forth and they just don't look at that.
We keep looking at oil and gas and what they are doing. We have the oil and gas that is going right by our ports in tankers and that is a very big concern, oil spillage. We found over there in Scotland, especially, that that was something that we should be really interested in, really looking at some ways of protecting areas against those types of things.
MR. PARKER: I guess the bottom line is that we must protect our fishery. It's thousands of jobs here in Nova Scotia that are dependent upon it and let's hope that continues.
I want to shift my focus back to the capital gains allowance and I've had some experiences with this, with some of my fishermen in the River John area of Pictou County. I had a chance last week to speak on Maritime Noon about that and how it's affecting families and basically it's hard for the retiring fishermen to get out and it's hard for the young fishermen to get in because of the tax implications. Mr. Roach spoke here earlier about Quebec. My research shows that they have a capital gains allowance there of $0.5 million on the provincial side of the issue and if that was to be implemented here in Nova Scotia, I think it could make a tremendous difference. So why we can't have it similar to what the Province of Quebec has. If it's helping their fishermen, why can't it help us?
I have written letters to the minister and put out a press release on it there last week as well and will continue to push to make sure we get fairness for our fishermen. If we are saying that one province can do it, why can't Nova Scotia? So I will leave that at that for now.
I want to come back, also, to . . .
Roman">[Page 18]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Parker.
MR. PARKER: Oh, don't I have another minute?
MR. CHAIRMAN: You do, actually. Keep your powder dry. Mr. Sampson, I think, was looking for some clarification.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Charlie, what you are saying is the first $500,000 that is made in Quebec is exempt?
MR. PARKER: That's my understanding, that on the provincial side they have a capital gains exemption of $0.5 million.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: On their equipment or on income or a combination of them?
MR. PARKER: On any capital gains, if they sell boats or equipment or whatever. Like farmers enjoy $0.5 million now and small business people do. Fishermen only have $100,000 in this province. So it's a combination of federal and provincial that have to work together to make it happen.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that is coming off your time, Mr. Sampson. (Laughter)
Mr. Parker.
MR. PARKER: I want to come back to the owner/operator issue, too, and that has been a major concern in coastal Nova Scotia and it has the potential to really harm our coastal communities. If we have strong fishing families, we have strong communities and that's about the bottom line right here. The deterioration that is occurring or the lack of enforcement that is occurring by DFO, I don't know if they are turning a blind eye to it or they are just allowing it to happen through trust agreements. I understand it's a major concern in Southwest Nova. In your area, both in Guysborough and in Antigonish-Cape Breton, how big an issue is it? Do you see it as really starting to affect your fishery?
MS. WALLACE: Here in our area we are very fortunate to have the area office located in Antigonish and there are some infractions, maybe you know a fisherman taking in an egg-spawning lobster, something similar to that. We don't hear too much now about poaching being a problem or a lack of enforcement. The officers routinely are driving and checking the wharves on a regular basis so the issues, thankfully, that Canso is facing, we are not.
MR. PARKER: I guess I'm really getting at the ownership of the licence and the boat and if it remains in the hands of the family, the fishing family, and not with outside interests.
Roman">[Page 19]
If it's not being bought up by large corporations, at this point do you feel it is still basically within the ownership of the community or the families in the communities or is some of it slipping out of ownership.
MR. CRAWFORD: In the Gulf Nova Scotia there is, I would say, very little of the owner/operator. It is starting to surface, especially in the crab thing. The cost of a crab licence has gone through the roof. It's ridiculous and this is where it is surfacing first. There are very few, I think, independents who own a couple of gears or companies own a couple of gears in Gulf Nova Scotia that I know of but it is going to start and if the government doesn't do something now, it's going to be the same thing as happened down in Southwest Nova, it's out of control. I don't know how they are going fix it. Grandfather them guys in and then shut her down after that, I don't know but they better do something or it's going to start in Gulf Nova Scotia. There is no doubt about it. If there is a buck to be made, they are going to make it. They are going to be there to do it, the big guys.
MR. NEWELL: It's the same way in our area. The lobster fishery, a few years ago, if you landed 2,500 pounds, it was a big year which was absolutely nothing. Now there are people landing 15,000 pounds and 16,000 pounds so it is getting up there. Same thing with the crabs, since the crab has expanded. The interest wasn't there before and now it is and we do see it starting to happen a bit in the crab and the lobster fishery. If they do away with owner/operator, then it would mean that somebody from Halifax could come down to Canso, and buy up 20 lobster licences. The next step to doing away with owner/operator is to put lobsters on ITQs which would mean that somebody in Halifax could have one vote, and with - now we have a limit of 250 pots - an ITQ then they can say there is no need to have that limit so we are going to fish 1,000 pots and put them all on one boat. That's where the community of interest would come in. You have three people in Halifax controlling the whole lobster fishery, and it would simply wipe out the small communities, everywhere along the coast. It's the lobster fishery right now that's the mainstay of keeping communities together. Once the lobster fishery is gone, that's it, the communities are completely gone.
MR. CRAWFORD: Before your time is up, Charlie, I think a big thing in Gulf Nova Scotia for us is Boat Harbour. This happens to be a provincial thing. It's their problem. The original thing was to send it two miles out into the Strait in a tube. The fishermen kept getting at the province and the guys who did the study, and then it came up to 20 per cent, then it went up to 50 per cent to 70 per cent that they're going to clean up. Now we've got them up as high as 90 per cent, to drain it out, pump it dry, get the machines in there to clean this stuff up. I hope there's support there to finish it all the way, instead of dumping this pollutant crap out in the Strait.
MR. PARKER: I agree.
MR. O'LEARY: The one thing about owner/operator is that there is a policy that is the owner/operator policy. We're afraid what will happen if that's removed. There is a policy
Roman">[Page 20]
there now, and if that's gone, anybody can do anything. There's where the problem will be. Whatever's being done now will be 100 times worse if that's gone.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Parker. Mr. Gaudet.
MR. WAYNE GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to this owner/operator licence policy. Especially in southwestern Nova Scotia, this has been a major issue for quite some time and continues to be. What I fail to understand is the large corporations, the multinationals, they're already in business, lending money and buying licences. We have an owner/operator policy, apparently, but yet the multinationals are in business as we speak. I guess I'm trying to understand or get some clarification. If we're against this, why is this continuing to grow? I'm not going to name any companies from down my neck of the woods, but these companies already have 10, 20 lobster licences in control and growing. I'm sure that's not the only area of the province. Why do we have a policy in place, but yet it doesn't appear to be enforced?
MR. O'LEARY: We're trying to understand the same thing. Why isn't it being enforced? There's a policy there, and the majority of the fishermen, at least when this started, this is what they wanted. It just seemed to be allowed to just go, and trust agreements came into effect, and it just grew and no one seems to be touching it. We don't understand why. Now you're getting a large number of licences, especially in 34, that are in the hands of a few people, and those people are going to be in favour of doing away with it. It was allowed to happen, and it should never have. I don't know, it has just snowballed.
MR. NEWELL: If you do away with owner/operator - right now you have to have a fisherman physically on the boat with the licence in his name - then the people who control that licence now will come out in front and lobby to have ITQs, to be able to put 1,000 pots on a boat, and to do away with all the individual fishermen. They don't need them anymore. Right now they do need them, and they're being manipulated and they're not getting the money they deserve for going out there fishing, but they don't have a choice because of the price of the licences.
I think Kay or Dave mentioned that with the Native component being pretty well done, that the price will go down, but with the corporate interest out there, and it's not only big corporate interest, it's mobile boats that have one, then two and then three, they then have excess money that they can go out and buy these. That's the problem with doing away with owner/operator. It's going to open the door to so much more.
MR. CRAWFORD: And also, with owner/operator, down the road they're going to have such control of the fishing industry, the volume, they're going to set the price. This is another way it's going to kill the little guy inside, the guys who aren't bought out. The big companies are going to control the price, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Roman">[Page 21]
[2:00 p.m.]
MR. GAUDET: So this has been an issue for quite some time, and continues to be, it continues to grow, but yet there doesn't appear to be any solution in the near future. I'm just trying to understand, again, the magnitude of this problem in the very near future. I know in Clare we used to have a number of draggers. Those draggers and licences have gone, they're fishing elsewhere. People have been asking, why aren't licences tied to a specific community or town, that those quotas cannot leave a certain area? Has that been explored?
MR. CRAWFORD: If you look at what's wrong with Canso down there now, the big companies bought up all the quota, and you have a town that's 200, 300 years old that has nothing to survive on, because these big companies came in, took the quota and went with it, put it somewhere else at some other plant, and don't even use any boats anymore, that's an example of the death of one town. That's the oldest fishing community we have in Nova Scotia or Canada. Sooner or later, if this is allowed to continue, it's going to be picking them off one after the other, and they'll be dragging them off the outports and putting them in St. John's, or it will be in Halifax now. Same thing.
MR. O'LEARY: Some of the problems happen because there are large businesses. There are these large businesses and if they threaten to move or do move, we've lost all that work in that little town. Canso lost 700 basic jobs. So governments make agreements - municipal, federal - to get things, and then seven, eight years down the road, oh my God, why did we do that? Just like it happened in Canso. The quota was gone, it was too late. Those are things that happen that have to stop to protect what's left.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Theriault.
MR. HAROLD THERIAULT: Thank you for your presentation. I understand every word you're saying. I fished for 35 years. I saw it coming a long time ago, the inshore fishermen, just like the offshore. If the owner/operator fails us, that's what will happen to all the communities. They will close down. This whole thing was studied in New Zealand back in the 1980s. I won't say one thing about New Zealand here today, but if you want to go take a look at it, you'll find, probably, that two great big companies in the United States own the fishery there. As I'm sitting here today, I believe there's American money buying our lobster fishery up inshore here. I won't mention any names, I'm just saying it's happening.
I can see why DFO might want this, I've seen it for years, it's easier for them to deal with. I see what your association is doing for them right now. DFO used to do all these jobs, provide all these services, and here you're doing it. I don't know what they're doing. (Interruptions) Anyway, we won't go there, not right now.
I can see why this province should be stopping it or trying to help stop this, 70 per cent of our income is from the coastal communities of this province. I don't know where
Roman">[Page 22]
you're going to plant us all in this city. There's no room here now. We're going to die off. I just stepped out of the fishery to give it to my son so he wouldn't have to go away to Alberta to work for Ralph Klein, for God's sake. It's the truth. I stepped out of it and let him take it over, gave it to him. That's what I'm doing sitting here today. I've preached this a lot, and it's going nowhere. The feds don't care, they just want to privatize the fishery to let, they think, a few companies down here take it over. Well, they did in New Zealand, a few companies, a few dozen of them, and now it's two. Everybody has their price.
I sat in a fisherman's office the other day, down home, and he had a call from Florida, what's the price on your plant today? They can up it every day, and no matter what price they put it at, we'll pay it. It's not the price of the licences that DFO is paying for the Natives or that these little companies are paying $1 million for a lobster licence, it's the outside pressure and power that is coming in here. Maybe the United Kingdom might own this fishery in 10 years, whoever has the biggest barrel full of money will get it. That's where it will end up if this owner/operator is not enforced.
The owner/operator will save these coastal communities, the inshore fishery and the small-boat fleet. That's what will save them, if we have guts enough to stand up and say that. If we haven't, if we sat here and talked about it, like we have for 10 years, they are out there today, this afternoon, right now, buying it and that's the God's fact.
I want to talk about a quarry up in Canso. There was a quarry started up there in Canso 10 years ago.
MR. O'LEARY: The Strait of Canso.
MR. THERIAULT: Strait of Canso. Has that silt from that quarry done any harm to the bottom around there that you know of? Can anybody fill me in on that a little?
MR. NEWELL: Not that we know of. The Strait of Canso is 50 miles from us but with the industry that was there, the gypsum mine, the pulp and paper, oil refineries at one time, you sailed up through the Strait and it was just like looking in a mud puddle, it was that dirty and there was very little going on there. Now I'm talking to the fishermen who live there, the water is cleaned up. They believe that there are holes coming in the Causeway and more tide going through so it has cleaned up. Of course the pulp and paper have put more environmental things in, gypsum mines have too. Their fishery has come back, the same way as everywhere else along the coast. There are more lobsters there, there are more herring, there are more mackerel so in talking to the fishermen there, I don't believe the quarry has hurt them that much. I guess to get the definite answer, you would have to talk to some of the fishermen from that area and get their opinion first-hand.
MR. THERIAULT: Anyway, I won't go on. I could sit here and talk all day to you about this. We know this is happening. I think this is one of the biggest problems that we
Roman">[Page 23]
have for our small-boat inshore sector right now is this owner/operator. If this is not taken care of, just what I said and just what you fellas are saying, too, it's going to happen. I can see all the inshore fishery being gone in 10 years in this province. It's happened in the offshore sector, Canso, Riverport, Shelburne, all gone and now it has come to the inshore. Let's buy that up too and DFO sees fit to let that happen because they don't want to deal with it. They don't want to deal with inshore fishermen. They say get organized like you did and do all you are doing for them but they will still let you be bought up to get rid of you. That might save you a few more years for what you have done by organizing but it will not save you from the amount of money that will come in to buy it.
They went from $100,000 in 1999, down home from $200,000 to $1 million in four years. Even if they have to pay $2 million for them, they will get them but they will wipe it out. Some of us will go to the grave rich but they will wipe it out and our children will have nothing and that's a fact.
MR. CRAWFORD: You talk about the owner/operator thing there too. I think it's imperative that this committee make a recommendation to the province and the province come out publicly and state that the province is definitely for owner/operator here. Make a public stand here and let's get it on the books here. Regan is going to do something, guys, because he is talking about opening up the Fisheries Act and something owner/operator is going to happen about that or not but I would like this committee and the Province of Nova Scotia to stand up for the fishermen and make it public that they do support owner/operator in this province.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Langille, you talked earlier about making a motion. I can't remember if it was on this issue.
MR. LANGILLE: No, it wasn't. It was on the issue of enforcement. However . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, that's pretty close to this.
MR. LANGILLE: That would take second place to what you are discussing now. I would ask that maybe we put our heads together and come up with a motion if we are in favour of it, on the owner/operator, or for discussion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the motion is a great idea if the committee is in agreement. I am just curious as to the wording, if we want to send something to Minister Regan on this issue.
MR. PARKER: And also to our own Fisheries Minister.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
Roman">[Page 24]
MR. LANGILLE: Mr. Chairman, if I may, we are fortunate to have a cross-section of MLAs here at this particular time with the member for Digby who is very knowledgeable, certainly a lot more than I am in this field. So I am just wondering maybe if he could start the motion.
MR. THERIAULT: I will make the motion that we send a letter to Geoff Regan that we support the owner/operator for our small-boat inshore sector.
MR. PARKER: I will second that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I was just wondering, do we want to send a copy to the provincial minister as well . . .
MR. DOOKS: It's absolutely appropriate to do that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: . . . and ask for his support in this as well?
MR. THERIAULT: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, second, Mr. Parker. You have that okay, Mora.
MR. O'LEARY: Mr. Chairman, there is something here I'm going to leave you people, for people who are not quite as knowledgeable as our Digby member there, this happened in British Columbia and this will give you an idea of what happened to the fishery out there. It's called ecotrust and if you read this you will get an idea of what would happen here if the owner/operator policy is not kept on balance.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I'm going to jump in here.
MR. LANGILLE: Aren't you going to call for the question?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Thank you. I will jump in here now.
MR. THERIAULT: Maybe we should clarify something here. When I speak of small- boat inshore fishery, I speak of 44'11" and under.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else, Mr. Theriault?
Roman">[Page 25]
MR. LANGILLE: I've got the other motion, whenever you want.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, go ahead, Mr. Langille.
MR. LANGILLE: I'll just run it by and see what people think. I'm doing this because of the concern of the fish plants. I know as provincial legislators, we don't have the authority, of course, we can only recommend to the federal DFO and we might carry more weight in the provincial but anyway, on your concern on the fish plants, I just did that, put a motion forward to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and instruct provincial Fisheries enforcement officers to become more visible in enforcing the inspecting of fish plants in an effort to prevent illegal activities. I don't know if that covers it or not but . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm just wondering, are there enough people to do the job? If there are only two guys in the whole province . . .
MR. DOOKS: May I?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sure.
[2:15 p.m.]
MR. DOOKS: I'm certainly not speaking against my colleague's motion but maybe we should have a briefing from the provincial department on how they approach the inspections of our fish plant and see what we feel about that. We are talking about one part of Nova Scotia here. We don't know if they are not visiting other plants. We just don't know the story, to be quite honest, so I think it would be appropriate to have information fed back to the committee on the mechanism put in place for inspecting fish plants on that one because that is a provincial mandate, is it not, the province inspects the plants? I'm just curious on what is the approach, how many plants are they inspecting? Maybe they need to beef it up just in your area, maybe the other areas are fine. Let's have some education on that rather than a motion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It's a good point. I think we are to a position where either Mr. Langille should withdraw his motion or we should get a seconder.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Could I just maybe speak in regard to the motion? Mr. Chairman, that was one of my next questions coming up. I've listened to Mr. Theriault tell us about plane loads of lobsters that are being flown out of this province out of season. I know of an area, I believe, not being a fisherman, but I believe the standard size of a scallop drag is supposed to be three and a quarter inches, the chain, the rings, the drags that hold the scallops and somebody who is fishing blatantly, year in, year out with three inch rings. A quarter of an inch doesn't sound like much but in the size of a scallop shell, that's a tremendous difference. That's common knowledge because of politics and power, it's never
Roman">[Page 26]
mentioned and so the lack of enforcement is there from one end of the province to the other. So I think Mr. Langille's motion is in order in that respect.
MR. DOOKS: And that's fine. Do the feds not do the enforcement of the coast, separate from the province doing the inspection of the plants? Is that not how that runs? Right. So what I'm saying is if we're going to make a motion or a request, let's get it appropriate. If we're talking about enforcement, then we have to write the federal department; if we're talking about inspection, we write our correspondence to the province. That's simply the point I'm trying to make. In saying that, it's nice to make a motion about enforcement, but never to get any correspondence about it, what does it prove? It's nice to make a motion about inspection of the plants, but not to get any correspondence or briefing on it in the future means you can't even follow it.
So I'm saying, if we were to ask about information on how do they enforce, how many people do they have, what are the criteria of the federal enforcement, what are the criteria on plant inspections, and that was fed back in through this committee, then we could digest that and make the appropriate motion at that time. That's all I'm saying. I'm going to agree with the consensus of the committee, as I always do, but I'd just like to make sure, where it's such a serious issue, that when these letters reach the appropriate department that they know we know what we're speaking of and that we've been given the appropriate information to base our request on.
MR. LANGILLE: Not to rebut you, colleague, however, the reason for this motion to the DFO is simply because we are provincial legislators and this is to the provincial Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. Obviously we carry a bit more weight when it comes to that. We will get correspondence back on this. If not, there's always Question Period in the Legislature. Anyway, what I'm saying is we probably have more teeth in getting answers from our local government than from the federal government.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I'd second the motion, Mr. Chairman, on one condition, that we would put in that Mr. d'Entremont, our provincial minister, would ask for the information that our honourable colleague is suggesting, that he write a letter then to the federal minister requesting the information so that we can better determine where we stand on enforcement and whatnot, because from what I'm reading here, I think that the group from Guysborough is doing more right now with their 100-some members and their 100 committees, they're more active, it appears, than the Department of Fisheries.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we go there, let's be clear. I think Mr. Langille's motion was around going to the minister on the inspection in plants, for illegal activities. Mr. Sampson wanted that amended so that it would include a letter to (Interruptions)
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: That the provincial minister was willing to include a letter to the feds to ask just exactly what the federal guys are doing, which would satisfy Mr.
Roman">[Page 27]
Dooks' request and would give the committee more information. We would contact the provincial minister, we could get some action today by doing that, and then we would await a response from our provincial minister, when he heard from the federal person. That would cover both levels and get the information that Bill was talking about.
MR. LANGILLE: My only concern is sometimes when we put too much into a motion, where you're criss-crossing provincial to federal, it gets bogged down.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's fine, Mr. Langille. Mr. Gaudet.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, that's exactly my point, maybe what we should do, first of all, is agree to Mr. Langille's motion calling upon the provincial Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for enforcement in fish plants. Then, once we have that motion out of the way, we can address Mr. Sampson's question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Do we have a seconder for Mr. Langille's motion as read? (Interruptions) We don't need one.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried. That'll be done.
Mr. Sampson, did you want to put forth another motion, to the federal issue?
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Just that we contact the federal department to ask what's being done on the federal level, what Mr. Dooks was looking for in regard to information on their enforcement and what resources they are utilizing.
MR. GAUDET: Just looking for clarification. Are you suggesting, through our chairman, that we invite DFO to come in and make a presentation to the members of this committee, to inform us exactly what kind of enforcement they're involved with in Nova Scotia?
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Absolutely.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, members of the committee, DFO has been requested. We just don't have a time presently, and that's actually on the agenda to be dealt with at the end of this. We can deal with that. Thank you, Mr. Sampson, I appreciate it. If members don't have a problem, I'd like to ask a few questions. (Interruptions) No, it's no longer a motion, they're already on the list.
Just to be clear on owner/operator, there is a policy to maintain owner/operator, but what's really happening is no enforcement of it. That's what I understand. I just wanted to
Roman">[Page 28]
raise the item that Mr. Newell had mentioned, and it was around the licence being a privilege and the minister could revoke that whenever. I guess I want to say be careful what you wish for. In terms of quotas for the supply-managed sector in agriculture, the quotas became an item that you could go to the bank and it had value. The banks would lend you money based on its value. All that did was drive the value of quota through the roof. Actually, it's probably one of the factors that the agricultural sector is trying to deal with, because it's really been an impediment for people to enter the supply-managed sector, just because of the value on quota.
Your idea is a good one, around trying to have something, because if the banks aren't willing to lend money based on a privilege, I can see that as a problem, but actually that's something the province really should be able to look at and identify as an issue, and say, well, these people are here, they're committed, they've had so many years in the industry, and we support the industry, so therefore we're willing to place some compassionate value on this.
I think that if those licences become more than a privilege, and you guys now notice what's happening to the values of them and, Mr. Theriault, I think you articulated that really well, going from $100,000 to $1 million or it could be $2 million. So if that's the situation you're in now, if it becomes much more than that, I think you're going to find that it will be more serious. I just say that as a cautionary measure. If that's the road you think you want to go down, then I'm not the guy to stop you. I just see that it hasn't necessarily worked so well on the supply-managed side. Mr. Newell, you may want to comment on that.
MR. NEWELL: We already have that, that the piece of paper is worth a lot of money, so as far as the price, if it becomes something permanent and not just a privilege, I don't think it will impact the price of it, because the fishery in general, if the quota goes up, the price goes up. If people want to buy up a bunch of quota, the price is naturally going up. The problem we have, that is already happening, it's just that the banks cannot do the same thing. I think that it would be an asset that you could then be able to go to the banks, instead of having to go to a corporation.
A trust agreement in itself is a hard thing to get around, because if I go to a buyer and get a loan to buy a bunch of pots or buy a boat, it's considered a trust agreement but yet I still own the licence and I have to pay that gentleman back. When it becomes a problem is when the person lending the money then takes control over the licence and he has the say. It is still considered trust agreements but it is two different things. How you get around it, I don't know.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And instead of really a trust agreement, they have taken ownership of the licence.
MR. NEWELL: Yes.
Roman">[Page 29]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Crawford.
MR. CRAWFORD: I don't know, it's different. We are in Scotia Fundy, we are in the Gulf of Nova Scotia. I think the better approach would be for the feds to use kind of a banking system for the feds. They can control the licences then.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We are going to start the second round. First on that list is Mr. Sampson. I will probably abbreviate these presentations.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Just to touch back on the gas and oil development within fishing areas. Do you have any actual evidence of what effect that has had on the fishery?
MR. NEWELL: No. The major problem we had with the natural gas, the seismic especially, is nobody knew what damage this may do or may not do, we don't know, but there was never any testing done before they were allowed to go do it. I'm gonna shoot myself in the foot here and everybody else will probably hang me when I get home but down home the seismic testing has been going on for a number of years, probably, what, 10 years or 12 years?
MR. O'LEARY: More than that, probably.
MR. NEWELL: More than that. Since then, the codfish, naturally, has disappeared for whatever reason but snow crab has exploded, shrimp have exploded, lobsters have come back. So, did the seismic have an impact? Would the stocks be doubled if they hadn't have done any seismic testing? We don't know and nobody knows for sure if it would have had any impact. It's a hard one to say but the thing is they should have done more study before they actually let this happen.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I asked that, Mr. Chairman, because of the seismic that was done in Sydney Bight, an area that is relevant to me in Victoria County. Just to take the small area of North of Smokey, back in 1999-2000, the total fishery in all of Victoria County was $15 million for the total of Victoria County. In 2003 it was $17 million just North of Smokey, it had expanded that much and being renewable, this is why I asked that. It appears that the bureaucrats are running the fishery and not the fishers or the people directly involved. Am I right in assuming that or should I not assume anything?
MS. WALLACE: No, you are very correct in that assumption. It's very difficult for organizations and harvesters and representatives to attend meetings and to speak on behalf of the industry on what is best for the fishery because they know it and try to maintain inclusive and transparent relationships with the federal government. We are asked to participate at the meetings. We are asked to give presentations. We are asked to contribute to research and we actively do all this and at the end of the day, when a recommendation is sent off to the federal minister, we are not allowed to see it. We can request this in writing,
Roman">[Page 30]
we can request it verbally and they still will not let us see what they are recommending to the federal minister.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Okay and in the essence of time, one final one, Mr. Chairman. Any information on expanding underutilized species within your groups?
MS. WALLACE: Well we are right now currently with rock crab and then there is the squid. So yes, we are trying to create other viable fisheries as well.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. NEWELL: The same thing applies in Guysborough County. We have members, I think, right now on 22 committees. I, personally, have meetings every day this week. Underutilized species, we have been pushing that the hardest, our association, for years. We looked at . . .
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Can you mention some of the species?
MR. NEWELL: Yes, Jonah crab, toad crab, explore more areas for the snow crab areas. We started a shrimp trap fishery. We put in for applications for a whelk fishery. (Interruption) What else? Sea cucumbers is another one that is on the horizon right now. So if there is anything out there that we feel can be saleable, we go after it.
[2:30 p.m.]
The big thing we see in the fishery, I'll make this statement, it's not a very glamorous thing. Oil and gas is glamorous. All the politicians jump on it and are in the spotlight. Meanwhile, the inshore fishery chugs along, I think it is the largest exporter of Nova Scotia this year but yet no attention is paid to it. The social impact of everything DFO does, or the government does, is not taken into account. It's looked at economically which is the best way to catch these trillion pounds of fish and the social impact is not looked at and it has to be if the small, coastal communities are going to survive.
Right now the haddock biomass is exploding on Georges and Browns Bank. The first thing DFO says, there are no plants to process it in Nova Scotia anymore so we are going to bring in factory freezer trawlers and catch it. You know that's what destroyed the fishery in the first place but yet that's their first intent and that statement has been already made that DFO is going to bring in a factory freezer trawler to catch the haddock on Georges and Browns Bank.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Langille.
MS. STEVENS: It's on the motion.
Roman">[Page 31]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, it's on the motion. You are off the list. Mr. Theriault.
MR. THERIAULT: It's the most complex industry in Canada, the fishery is. It's the most complex. It must be a job for bureaucrats who live in Ottawa to comprehend what does go on around these coastal communities because every 50 miles around the coast you are into a different fishery, you are into a different group of people, you are into different rules and regulations and it's a complicated thing. But what I've had some calls on this past few months from Nova Scotian fishermen, especially my area because they are fishing with the New Brunswick boats in the same Bay of Fundy there, their boats touch each other every day. They are fishing for the same stock, the same price on the same market but here we have workers' compensation in this province charging our fishermen 6.5 per cent of their earings up to $3,000 per crew member and the New Brunswick boats that are fishing the same fish for the same price on the same market in the same bay are paying nothing. They don't need workers' compensation until they get up to 25 workers. We are three workers or more in this province.
We always used to fish two-handed. I used to fish alone, lobster fishing, 250 traps, fished alone, day in day out. After a while I took another man with me, 300 or 400 traps, our limit, and when the groundfishery went down, a lot of these fishermen in South West Nova took three, four and five people aboard to give the young fellas a job for the winter and now workers' compensation is charging them $3,000 a head for each one of them to go aboard those boats and they are up in arms that they are fishing alongside of New Brunswick boats that aren't paying a penny. Are you getting this in the Gulf? Is this going on? Are your fishermen saying anything about this?
MR. NEWELL: In Guysborough County, yes, we've complained about that for a number of years and in our particular case, it's even a little bit worse because our office staff, because we are a fisheries organization, fall under the same regulations. So we pay the highest premium for our office staff as well as the fishermen. It's kind of a little bit ridiculous that this is allowed to come on. We complained about it for years that it is way too high and as always, it has fallen on deaf ears.
The fishing industry is not looked at for its potential, it's just something that's there, that goes on. The perception is that all fishermen are stupid and draw unemployment. (Laughter) That is just a perception, it's not a glamorous thing. The perception is the government wants to be clear of the inshore fishery and that has been the perception for as long as I can remember and it still holds true today, when you see the things they're trying to do.
MR. THERIAULT: I wrote to the minister responsible for workers' compensation and he wrote me back stating that it has been recommended to the department that the three-person rule even be taken away, that if you are one single person in business, that you pay, so that's the latest I have heard back from him. We have private insurance companies down
Roman">[Page 32]
in Southwest Nova willing to sell us private insurance for less than one-third of the price and better coverage than with workers' compensation. Have you heard of that in your area of the private sector?
MR. O'LEARY: About the one person, I've heard that Transport Canada was down to an EFF meeting and that was mentioned, that one person has to pay compensation. I don't know much about the privatization, I haven't looked into it.
MS. WALLACE: Basically, for the Gulf Nova Scotia area the fishery is pretty much two or less helpers on a boat and it's not a big focus there for compensation. There have been private insurance companies that have contacted the associations. Our policy is that we don't give out membership addresses or names. If they do have a mail out, they're welcome to bring in 150 packages and we'll mail them out for them so the individual can look into it. If it's something the members want us to look into, we will, as a whole body.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Dooks.
MR. DOOKS: Just a few comments. To the member for Digby, I do believe that the workers on our boats should have protection, whether workers' compensation or private insurance. Maybe the rate is severe, there's no doubt about that, but I would be in support of that working person to have protection.
The other issue, I've been struggling back and forth, when we talk about the fishery per se, when we come from the Eastern Shore the fishery means the whole gamut, offshore, inshore, but we're mostly concentrating on lobster or shellfish here today. That would get back to the motion we made earlier for the enforcement by DFO on the fishery. Maybe we should have suggested on the lobster fishery if that was the intent because I think they do monitor, do they not, very well, the offshore fishery, meaning the halibut, haddock, cod? They have observers and everything on the wharves and as you land your boat, someone counts per pound or volume of fish and also, you have the offshore patrol. Anyway, there has been a bit of confusion - as far as I'm concerned - about what the definition is of the fishery in discussion today. I just want to make this comment, there are different fisheries - when I say fishery it's the whole thing, Mr. Chairman.
When we talk about the return of the species of lobsters, I have to tell you that on the Eastern Shore, the very reason for that - and I'm going to say it - it's because of the education of our fishermen through organizations such as yours. The fishermen on the Eastern Shore are business people today, there's no doubt about that. They run clean, efficient operations and they are abiding by the law, I would like to believe.
I talk to the fishermen constantly and they understand if they were to take an undersized lobster out, what that means to the future of the species. They understand if they
Roman">[Page 33]
should take one that has seed on it, what that means. The bottom line is they are hurting their investment for tomorrow and for their children.
So I have to applaud lobster fishermen in my area and I suggest across Nova Scotia because they're open-minded enough to learn how to make decisions benefiting their industry. That's why the lobsters are returning to our shores, because of the fishermen, themselves, and I applaud them for that. I'm not going to say any more because I've been bouncing all around on this committee today.
I enjoy the fishery, as a matter of fact, I'm from Jeddore, that's a fishing port east of Dartmouth, about 30 kilometres. The fishermen do very well, they work very hard and they're certainly family businesses, there's no doubt about it. I want to see them survive, I want them to make sure that their licences stay within their family unit because we consider them very smart and it's a very lucrative business. Thank you.
MR. NEWELL: I don't want to insult you or anything but I think it's time you go back to the fishermen and talk to them because we talk to the fishermen from the Eastern Shore, pretty near on a daily basis, and they're saying they have the same problem with enforcement as we do. It's nature that is looking after the lobster stocks. In a few years' time, DFO is going to come and say, because we put in conservation measures that it increased the stocks. Nature did it. The stocks down home have tripled in two years. If you look at the conservation measures when we started them six years ago, it takes eight years for those lobsters to come into the market before we can sell them. So any conservation measures we've done, to date, have not applied to the increase in lobster.
MR. DOOKS: Are you saying they're saying that; you're saying that, or DFO is saying that?
MR. NEWELL: I'm saying that. DFO is going to say because of what they did, they're going to take credit for it but that's not the fact.
MR. DOOKS: Have you misunderstood what I said?
MR. NEWELL: No.
MR. DOOKS: I said, because of education, because of organizations like yours and because of what the fishermen are doing is enhancing the population - if that's the word you use in the fishery - or the amount of lobsters coming in, that's the answer. And I'll stand firm on that one because I do talk to them constantly. The flavour of the community is it's because of what they're doing in their catchment area that's increasing the lobster stock. Nature was always a part, nature will clean up an oil spill after a while but it takes a long, long time. Sorry, carry on.
Roman">[Page 34]
MR. NEWELL: I won't argue with you but . . .
MR. DOOKS: Correct me if I'm wrong but . . .
MR. O'LEARY: I find that - Mike and I don't completely agree on this because I'm a little more radical than he is - probably 20 per cent of the fishermen are totally and completely honest, 20 per cent are totally and completely crooked and the rest will fit in the middle somewhere where they can make a go of it. (Laughter)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Parker.
MR. PARKER: I see Mr. Dooks has his next political speech all wound up here, although he got a little bit deflated there. (Interruptions) But it still has potential.
Mr. Chairman, was it you or the clerk who said we have DFO coming here? Do we have a date set for when they're arriving?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No.
MR. PARKER: But they're invited, they haven't responded yet to our request?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think they have responded, we just don't have a date.
MR. PARKER: So they are coming.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. PARKER: I look forward to that because I think they have a lot to answer for, especially around enforcement. We've been hearing all afternoon about the owner/operator policy and the lack of enforcement in that regard. I think it would be very good for this committee to have a first-hand chance to really lay it on the line and ask them why aren't they enforcing, why aren't they looking after the owner/operator policy and some of the other issues that are out there?
I understand in the Province of New Brunswick there is a court case pending right now around owner/operator. Apparently, DFO officials there have taken the initiative to take people to court who are not obeying the law and I guess I'm wondering, why isn't that happening in Nova Scotia? We heard from South West Nova and the Clare area that there's a blind eye being turned to the owner/operator policy, they're just letting it deteriorate. Why is New Brunswick enforcing it and not Nova Scotia? Maybe you can't answer that, it's DFO that has to answer that but I just raise it as an issue that is important. Shouldn't the DFO policy be the same right across the country, especially in two neighbouring provinces? Any comments on that?
Roman">[Page 35]
MS. WALLACE: For the owner/operator, yes, I agree with that, but on the West Coast, it's completely different compared to here. What I've been told, as far as the pending court cases go, they're just waiting for the verdict to come down and to see what it is before anything proceeds. I do know there is an internal committee within DFO right now that's working on all the documentation, FRCC's recommendations concerning the owner/operator, trust agreements from the meetings they had last January. So, hopefully, it will come out strong, it will eliminate those loopholes and trust agreements, and the fishery will stay as it should, the owner/operator.
MR. PARKER: Hear, hear for that. Hopefully, we'll have DFO in here soon so we can ask them first-hand what their policy is and why they have differences right in the Maritime Provinces.
[2:45 p.m.]
MS. WALLACE: Would we be allowed to come back to that? (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: As observers, yes.
MS. WALLACE: That would be great.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Langille, you have one question, I think.
MR. LANGILLE: I see today, while travelling to Halifax, it was on the radio a few times, I think Sobeys and Superstore are running a special on lobster, $8.77 a pound for Valentine's Day. Now I didn't hear anything about the price of lobster in the discussion today. Obviously it must be good, or we'd be hearing it from you people. What are the fishermen getting for a pound of lobsters these days?
MR. O'LEARY: I was told by someone who's still fishing that it's $7 a pound right at this point.
MR. NEWELL: Last year in Canso the average price was $6.13.
MR. LANGILLE: Why do you have such a difference in areas? Why would one area be a higher price than another? You're talking about a 75 cents a pound difference. Why would that be?
MR. O'LEARY: One of the things is seasons and availability. Right now there's really very few people fishing. If you had gone back a month ago, they were probably only getting about $5.50, $5.25. It all depends on season and timing and so on.
MR. LANGILLE: But it is a fair return, lobsters?
Roman">[Page 36]
MR. O'LEARY: Oh yes.
MR. LANGILLE: Lucrative.
MR. O'LEARY: I'll say yes, it's a good price, to be honest. We shouldn't be able to complain about the price, we should complain about the cost of everything else around us.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sampson, you wanted to make a comment.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to finish off with a comment in support of the groups that are here today, and maybe I'll be bold enough to say, for all the fisheries in Nova Scotia, that the fishers in Nova Scotia are open for business but the fishery in Nova Scotia is not for sale. I think they'd agree with that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like to have some closing comments?
MS. WALLACE: I would just like to focus on the professionalization for a couple of moments, just to stress how important it is to the fishing industry that it remains industry-led. The professionalization board, it would not only result in collecting the fees, the $50 registration fee for the harvesters of Gulf Nova Scotia, but it would be instrumental in being a working organization for them to deal with training as Transport Canada currently is trying to impose staggering amounts of changes towards the fishery. It's an important topic, and it's one that you all should be aware of. It's going to be very real to the fishermen very soon. Transport Canada is coming across Canada to give community meetings, very few, but they are at least trying to get out there. After that, by 2006, the changes are supposed to be finalized, and we need the support of all our representatives.
MR. O'LEARY: Scotia Fundy is also working on a training program, which is coming into effect, and we'll be voting on it. We haven't reached their level yet. They're in discussion with DFO on wording and so on and so forth, and that's going to start happening, from now until next year.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to say thank you on behalf of the committee. I know Mr. Theriault probably has the best handle on the industry, and his comment around every 50 miles was a different fishery, different rules, different whatever. I know for a while I was Fisheries Critic for our caucus, and I have to say, trying to get my head around what was going on in the fishery was a challenge, especially since I'm pretty planted on ground most of the time.
Once upon a time politicians used to talk about job creation, every time there was an election they were going to create jobs and pave roads. (Interruptions) When you think about the renewal resources that we have, and the fishery is one, renewable and sustainable, it can generate wealth to the end of time if we manage it correctly, and provide work in small, rural
Roman">[Page 37]
communities, and we're talking about a province that except for the Isthmus of Chignecto would be an island, so we have quite a bit of shoreline, that this is something that is really worth paying attention to. It's never been clear to me why the Canadian Government has taken the approach to head more towards corporatization of the industry and taking it out of the hands of small fishing communities, where it really has the best benefit.
What you said did not fall on deaf ears, I'd like you to know that. We would be very interested to help, whatever we can. I think Mr. Langille's motion was to that direction. I want to say we appreciate your time in coming here today for us. Thank you very much.
MR. NEWELL: One more topic before we go, and I know we won't get any questions on this one. The seal problem along the coast is terrible. It has eliminated fisheries, it eliminated the mackerel fishery down home. We have to modify our lobster traps to be able to keep fishing. Using down baits in the tuna fishery has been eliminated because of seals. The groundfish fishery, if there was one, wouldn't exist because there's so many seals. You can't go out there and set a tub to trawl and expect to get a fish onto it because the seals have it eaten before you get a chance, and that's just going out one day a month. If you were fishing every day, they'd know where you were at and they'd be there continuously. It's a major problem.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dooks.
MR. DOOKS: Two quick questions, I'm not prepared to get into lengthy debate on this one today. Do seals eat live fish?
MS. WALLACE: Yes.
MR. DOOKS: What do you suggest should take place with the seal problem?
MR. NEWELL: You can't do a cull because of the environmentalists. The idea of finding a market and supporting the people who are out there trying to find the market has to be . . .
MR. DOOKS: Are you suggesting a harvest?
MR. NEWELL: A harvest.
MR. DOOKS: That's a politically correct, environmentally sound, concrete word, but does it help the fishermen, that's the question. Would that word help the fishermen?
MR. NEWELL: It would help the fishermen if you eliminate some of the seals. It would provide jobs for the fishermen to harvest the seals, and it would provide jobs for plant workers if you can process the seals.
Roman">[Page 38]
MR. DOOKS: What percentage of the seal population would you recommend that they should harvest? (Interruptions) We could go on seals all day, but the point is there should be a harvest, should there not?
MR. NEWELL: I guess they should be harvested down to a manageable amount, whatever that would be, I don't know at the present time, but it would have to be looked at. Right now there's an overpopulation of grey seal, and it has to be harvested.
MR. DOOKS: Well, they monitor deer in the province, they monitor moose down your way. My gosh, it's quite a thing, the operation. They monitor, they keep it under control, they keep away disease from the species, and I think they're doing a fine job. I'd like to have a few more licences for moose, but you can't - that's alright. The point is, could they not monitor seals as well?
MR. NEWELL: They could. The aquaculture industry can get a permit to go out there and shoot ducks all year round because they're eating their mussels. They can shoot cormorants because they're eating their mussels.
MR. DOOKS: I think we increased the moose hunt, too, because there was an overpopulation down north, was there not? Okay.
MR. NEWELL: The point being that the grey seals are doing more damage than what the eider ducks or the shell ducks are doing to the mussel farms, but absolutely nothing. Nobody will touch it. It's going to have to be looked at if you're ever going to get a cod fishery back.
MR. DOOKS: I'm raising questions so you have an opportunity to speak to it, you understand what I'm doing.
MR. O'LEARY: Education won't do it, simply because the people who are putting the money into it don't give a darn about if it's right or wrong. (Interruptions)
MS. WALLACE: There is a management plan in place for seals.
MR. DOOKS: Oh yes, I'm aware of that.
MS. WALLACE: And it's due to be finished, completed, this year. This is the time where we have to have the ideas forthright, and there's supposed to be a meeting in the Summer in Newfoundland, and letters of support from you guys would certainly help us.
MR. DOOKS: I'm noticing more harbour seals than I've ever noticed before. Is that a grey seal or a harp seal, they're different species?
Roman">[Page 39]
MR. NEWELL: It's two different species, but both of them are multiplying pretty quickly down our way.
MR. DOOKS: But on the drift ice or anywhere on the edge of ice in our harbours you see them.
MR. NEWELL: Yes, we see them on the rocks all the time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
[2:55 p.m. The committee recessed.]
[3:00 p.m. The committee reconvened.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We want to have some discussion around trying to get a date set for DFO, I think that would be Item No. 1. There has been a question raised around do we want to have Agriculture and Fisheries representatives come in.
MS. MORA STEVENS (Legislative Committee Coordinator): What actually was approved by the committee a couple of months ago was to have members from the Canadian Council of Fish Harvesters in. These two groups were a part of that and the council suggested to me the list that you'll find on the second page of your agenda, that these might be other groups the committee would like to hear from within the council, itself.
The committee also approved having DFO, which I thought to mean at the end, after hearing from these groups. But it was also mentioned today that possibly the provincial Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, prior to DFO. It is a matter of finding out which of these groups the committee wanted to hear from so I can contact them. The council has already sort of mentioned it to them that they might be on call to come.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Langille.
MR. LANGILLE: Is it possible to get the ground fishermen in first? I'm looking at haddock, cod, herring, all these types of fish, prior to bringing in DFO so we can lay the groundwork and know exactly what we're talking about.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: The ground fishery is the only portion of the fishery that collapsed, isn't it? The cod fishery? Everything else seems to be expanding.
MR. LANGILLE: Yes, that's what he's saying, the shrimp, the crab and so on has taken off around their area of Canso. One of the things that got me was the topic of seals that came up at the end of this meeting. I'm very interested in that because I know just by
Roman">[Page 40]
looking, I went across to P.E.I. and they're bobbing up everywhere and years ago you didn't see that. We know it's a problem. We know they have to eat something.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not opposing the motion, my concern is on looking at these potential witnesses, one, two, three, four, five, six, I'm thinking about our schedule. This is basically one topic and all the caucuses had submitted lists where we're looking at about six months worth of presentations. I'm just wondering whether you want to go through that list or just continue with a few.
MR. LANGILLE: As a follow up to my question, I suggest we bring in the other fisheries and then in April, when we will be sitting in the House, we should bring in DFO at that time. I feel this is a very important - or provincial fisheries too - topic and we'll have everybody here and probably more coverage at that time for this important topic.
MR. PARKER: I think we have to get DFO in whenever it's convenient or whenever it's possible. They're probably a little more difficult to get in than some of these groups. I think it's a very big issue and one that should be addressed. Let's get their answer on why the enforcement is not taking place.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: If we're sitting then we're going to be in the House pretty well all day, we'd either have to come in the morning or . . .
MR. LANGILLE: Well, we do.
MR. PARKER: That's when we meet, normally in the morning, when the House is sitting. My first choice is DFO.
MR. DOOKS: If we're talking enforcement then DFO is the first . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mora, we'll have you to get a date lined up for DFO.
MS. STEVENS: They're probably looking at April or May. There are two offices, the Gulf and the Scotia, would you like representatives from both? (Interruptions)
Yes, that's the complete coverage of the province. They might just bring one or two but if I request one from each section at least and then if they decide to bring others, that would be fine.
So are there any other groups you want to bring in prior to that for your March meeting? The only other one that had been approved was the Cape Breton/Inverness Federation of Agriculture. I contacted them and they were to get back to the committee if they were interested in coming. I haven't received a letter from them as yet.
Roman">[Page 41]
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Minister Christopher d'Entremont went down and met with them. I haven't heard anything after that because I set up a meeting and they cancelled it and they set one up on their own and did it, so I don't know where that stands.
MR. LANGILLE: Where does horse racing fall? Is that a resource or economic development, or both?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It's under the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. The Resources Committee deals with lumber and lumber mills, and that's economic development so I don't think you have to split hairs on it. If you wanted to have them . . .
MR. LANGILLE: No, I was just thinking of that and the state that it's in. I know we're down to three tracks and there have been proposals made - it is an industry and it's a good industry. Anyway, I'll put that for sometime in the future, no hurry.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I wouldn't mind, actually, if you were to approach the Cape Breton/Inverness federation, just to see if they are interested, before we kind of close the door on that, even though they haven't gotten back.
MS. STEVENS: Certainly.
MR. CHAIRMAN: They're already on the approved list.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, maybe at some point we should look at preparing another possible list and pick and choose and have some discussion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Maybe we can identify those on the list that would be capable of coming on shorter notice so if we get to a point like where we are now we can say, look, we can always get group A in because they will come on short notice, rather than if the feds are saying maybe April or May. I mean, they're just down the street, what's the problem?
MR. GAUDET: For the next meeting - that gives us a month - why don't all three of us try to throw possible witnesses together and then we can pick and choose.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MS. STEVENS: So do you want to have the provincial officials from Agriculture and Fisheries in, prior to DFO? That was something that was mentioned on that.
Roman">[Page 42]
MR. LANGILLE: They're so restricted in what they can do, the provincial when it comes to fisheries. Agriculture is different but fishery - I have a problem with it to tell you the truth, especially with DFO when you have to get permits to cross little streams in our area, it comes under DFO and the province says, no. Personally, I always thought that DFO should go to high-water tide and salt-water tide where it reached the freshwater and the rest is ours.
MR. THERIAULT: I always thought it was that.
MR. LANGILLE: No, it's not. I wish it was, it would be a lot easier. (Interruptions)
MR. GAUDET: Why don't we try to get DFO in. The reason we suggested DFO, especially with the Summer lobster industry, is to try to get some feedback out of them and then we may have to go to the provincial Department of Fisheries. What's in place? What are they doing in enforcement?
MR. THERIAULT: Maybe we could have LFA 34 in here before DFO and they can fill everybody in on the fishery. I would like to see that, first.
MS. STEVENS: It's certainly a lot easier than getting DFO because you're dealing with feds and provincial and all those issues.
MR. THERIAULT: Let's get LFA 33 and 34 in here. They can fill us in on the fishery and then we'll see what DFO is going to do.
MR. GAUDET: All right, put it in my language. (Laughter)
MR. THERIAULT: Lobster Fishing Area 34, which is from Digby right around to Halifax, the whole 33 and 34. We could get the Spinneys down in Yarmouth . . .
MS. STEVENS: They have a committee that's formed.
MR. THERIAULT: That's right.
MS. STEVENS: And that would cover it because we've heard from Gulf and Guysborough and haven't heard from the Scotia.
MR. LANGILLE: Would that be the same thing we just discussed?
MR. THERIAULT: No. They can fill us in on last year down there where they were pretty near in a western-style gunfight. (Interruptions) And this year, it's going to happen again, maybe worse. I don't know, I hope not. Let's get it from them, what happened, what
Roman">[Page 43]
went on, and then have DFO come in, and just follow up on it. At least we'll know what the fishermen down there are saying when DFO comes in.
MR. CHAIRMAN: How long would it be before we could have a Hansard of today's meeting?
MS. STEVENS: It usually takes about a week, sometimes a little less.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It would be nice to have before DFO comes in.
MS. STEVENS: Definitely.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The meeting is adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 3:11 p.m.]
