HALIFAX, MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2012

 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY

 

4:30 P.M.

 

CHAIRMAN

Mr. Clarrie MacKinnon

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I call the Subcommittee of the Whole House on Supply to order. We will begin with a statement from the minister.

 

Resolution E10 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $8,799,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, pursuant to the Estimate, and the business plan of the Nova Scotia Fisheries and Aquaculture Loan Board be approved.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

 

HON. STERLING BELLIVEAU: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to all my colleagues around the table here today. I think the members are certainly familiar with the gentlemen with me today, but I'll introduce them anyway: Paul LaFleche, the Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to my left; Greg Roach to my right, Associate Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture; and on my extreme left is Weldon Myers, the director of Financial Services in the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. We have a number of staff here and we have a great crew.

 

It's certainly a privilege and an honour to serve Nova Scotia in my capacity as both the Minister of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the Department of Environment. These two departments touch on so much that we value in Nova Scotia. I've been asked many times how a Minister of the Crown can be both the Minister of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture and of the Department of Environment. My answer has always been the same: if we want a healthy fishery, we must care for our environment; protect the environment and we will most certainly have a healthy fishery.

 

It comes as no surprise that our government remains committed to getting our fiscal house in order. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, recently outlined the numbers when he delivered his Budget Address. I don't need to go into details or repeat what he said, but my message is the same: our government is committed to getting back to balance, creating jobs, growing the economy, and improving health care for Nova Scotians.

 

It is no surprise to any of you that Nova Scotia's fisheries and aquaculture industry has a special place in my heart. I grew up in the fishery, and what I'm getting at is fish and aquaculture seafood are part of who we are as Nova Scotians. They're all part of our heritage. But they are also a very important part of our future, and that's what I want to talk about today. I know I don't have to tell anyone how important fisheries and aquaculture are to Nova Scotia, but I will anyway. Fisheries and aquaculture are the backbone of our coastal communities, and the seafood industry overall contributes significantly to Nova Scotia's economy each year.

 

Fish landings in 2010 were down from 2009. The primary numbers are estimated at approximately $490 million and we are expecting final numbers to be a bit higher. Lobsters were worth 40 per cent of the overall value. Sport fishing generated $87 million in the economy activity. Aquaculture generated another $45 million. Seafood exports in 2011 were more than $900 million.

 

All together, the fishing, aquaculture, and seafood processing industries employ thousands of people in Nova Scotia. Mr. Chairman, this doesn't include the economic activity of jobs in sectors such as tourism, culture, boat building, food services, and hospitality which are boosted by the excellent reputation Nova Scotia has because of our fisheries, aquaculture, and seafood industry. World over, one of the first things people think about when they think of Nova Scotia is the fisheries. I couldn't be more proud of that.

 

Mr. Chairman, I think the province used to have a slogan that said seafood was number one in Nova Scotia and Nova Scotia was number one in seafood. What that meant was that seafood was our top export and that Nova Scotia was the top seafood-exporting province in Canada. From the golden age of sail, Nova Scotia has been a leader in the seafood industry. Global factors certainly have changed but we are working to position ourselves so Nova Scotia can continue to reap the benefits of this valuable industry.

 

Mr. Chairman, seafood has slipped to our second-most-valued export in Nova Scotia. It's no surprise to anyone here that the industry has been hard hit in recent years. We've seen exports decline from over $1 billion - I repeat, $1 billion - in 2005 to just over $900 million last year, due mainly to the high Canadian dollar and the lingering effects of our global recession. Fuel prices continue to rise. Investments in our seafood infrastructure have lagged for several years. Simply put, the cost of getting started in the fisheries is a major impediment for loss of young people who want to get into the business.

 

Mr. Chairman, these aren't just abstract problems, they're impacting communities from one end of the province to the next. Some sectors have been particularly hard hit in recent years, particularly lobsters. The U.S. lobster market was hit extremely hard by the 2008 recession and the lobster sector has been the slowest to recover. On top of this, the Canadian dollar is now at par with the U.S. dollar. More than 75 per cent of our lobsters are exported to the U.S., so this has created the perfect storm for our seafood sectors, and our major species are still hurting in our major markets.

 

Our government recognizes what these challenges are and we've been working to address them. If we do it right, we can seize opportunities. Mr. Chairman, in past years we've made good investments in areas such as lobster science and quality, infrastructure renewal, seafood marketing, and product development.

 

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take a few minutes to talk about our lobster industry. The lobster industry is complex; lobsters have many markets and many players, and they all affect each other in various ways. The industry continues to feel the effects of low market prices, negative currency exchange, high operating costs, demands for a sustainable approach to fishing and management, and increased health and safety concerns. Pricing has been at the top of this list this year, and naturally I have great concerns. My department is working in every way it can to assist and support lobster fishers.

 

Mr. Chairman, we are working in the international market with the industry and the Lobster Council of Canada to expand our markets. The Lobster Council plays a critical role in all of this. The Lobster Council includes all segments of the industry, from harvesters, processors and buyers, to fisheries representatives and First Nations. We must continue with this united front if we are to strengthen the image of our lobsters and make it available as a top-quality product sold in high-end markets worldwide.

 

Mr. Chairman, we have also supported science and stewardship initiatives through the Fishermen & Scientists Research Society. We recognize the significant contributions they are making to our industry. We will continue to support this industry through legislated change along certification and organizational support of the Lobster Council of Canada and through marketing initiatives.

 

At the heart of our seafood industries lies the ability to export and reach new markets. The Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture continues to have presence at major international seafood shows. This year, we once again participated in the International Boston Seafood Show with both myself and my Associate Deputy Minister, Greg Roach who was there for support. I'm pleased that our Opposition Critics attended this event. At the 2012 International Boston Seafood Show, four exhibitors showed in the Nova Scotia booth; that's in addition to the four independent exhibitors attending from Nova Scotia. There were also more than 20 Nova Scotia walkers who used the booth as an important meeting place. Business leaders were collected from all over the United States and all corners of the globe. This show attracts buyers from over 50 countries.

 

I attended these shows on several occasions over the years, including this year, and I've seen first-hand how much goes on in presenting ourselves to the world. Our provincial staff do an amazing job by putting Nova Scotia's best foot forward in showing buyers from all over the world why they should buy Nova Scotia seafood. Simply put, it's some of the best-quality, best-value seafood there is.

 

We continue to work here at home with the Select Nova Scotia campaign in promoting the benefits of choosing local seafood. Select Nova Scotia is the government's ongoing domestic market development campaign that helps promote and educate Nova Scotians about high agri-food and seafood products. This is done through direct marketing, retail, food service, and partnering with industry. Select Nova Scotia's multi-media campaigns feature seafood and aquaculture products. The Web site features a "Where to Buy Local" database with over 50 listings of where consumers can access Nova Scotia's seafood from producers and direct-market outlets. Seafood products are featured in local food events such as the 12 IncrEDIBLE Picnics held province-wide last summer and the 12 IncrEDIBLE Community Suppers events held this past winter.

 

Today's fisheries puts many demands on fishers in the industry. One way these demands must be addressed is through strong representation from associations. They are central to making sure fishers' voices are being heard and their needs and interests are being addressed. That is why last Fall, after extensive consultations with the industry, we brought forward and passed a new Fish Harvester Organizations Support Act - or FHOSA. It provides the tool for inshore fishers to strengthen their organization. That way, they can more effectively manage their interests on issues such as fishery management decisions and marine safety, and take advantage of market opportunities. FHOSA will make it easier for groups to organize around common economic and, in some cases, species and geographic areas. My department is actively working on new regulations to accommodate the Act.

 

In a similar vein, my department is also completing work on a new fish harvesters registration and certification Act. My department has worked closely with the industry groups to create legislation that will allow for the establishment of a board that will register and certify fish harvesters based on their knowledge and experience. It will also support skills and safety training opportunities. The establishment of such a board will help ensure Nova Scotia has a sustainable and prosperous fishing industry, creating higher value jobs and economic wealth in rural Nova Scotia.

 

Mr. Chairman, the Workers' Compensation Board of Nova Scotia, having the mandate over safety associations in Nova Scotia, sanctioned the establishment of the industry-run Fisheries Safety Association of Nova Scotia. Our government supports the association's efforts to make the seafood industry a safer place to work and to lower WCB premiums.

 

Nova Scotians have a long history of making their lives on the water and the fishing industry remains one of the most dangerous to work in. In 2011 there were 800 fisheries-related injuries in Nova Scotia. We have experienced our tragedies, and one is one too many. Between the years 2008 and 2010, 18 workers did not return to their families; they died while working in the fishery. It is our shared responsibility to support and promote a safer culture within our industry. We need to make sure that everyone arrives home safety, Mr. Chairman. We must make safety a priority.

 

Legislation isn't the only way we are working to help fishers. I am pleased to report that we have established an additional program through the Fisheries and Aquaculture Loan Board. The program will help with the transfer of licences between retiring fishers and new entries. The arrangement with respect to owner-operator allows for a level of down payment and allows the new retired fishers to set up a direct payout plan between them.

 

I hope that the program of flexibility arrangements has assisted in the succession planning. Succession planning is a priority for me and our loans-for-licence program is now active. It has been well received and continues to work well.

 

Mr. Chairman, one of our government's platform commitments was to press Ottawa to ensure federal fisheries policies reflect the needs of independent fishers in Nova Scotia. It follows through on our commitment and I pressed Ottawa on a number of issues in recent years, such as the development of fisheries that target new species. Recently I've been pressing Ottawa on two critical policies - fleet separation and owner-operator - that have arisen as a result of DFO's discussion paper on policy modernization. For more than 30 years these policies have protected the independence of Nova Scotia's inshore fishing fleets, while helping to maintain good jobs in coastal communities across this province.

 

Mr. Chairman, as the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and a proud fisherman myself, I recognize that these policies are the cornerstone of Nova Scotia's fishing industry, which is why our government supports them. In recent weeks, many individuals and organizations from all regions have contacted me with their concerns over the discussion paper released by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The future of Canada's commercial fisheries speaks about sustainability, economic viability and predictability, but fails to address questions about the fleet separation and owner-operator policies. As I said, I know how important these policies are to the future of Nova Scotia's coastal communities. That is why I took it upon myself to speak directly with the Fisheries and Oceans Minister, Keith Ashfield.

 

Mr. Chairman, at a meeting with my provincial and territory colleagues in March, I asked Minister Ashfield to clarify how these long-standing policies fit into the future management of the Atlantic fisheries. He has said that he wants to keep the consultation process open to all points of view. However, I believe that Nova Scotians deserve answers to these important questions. I also expressed my concerns with the consultation process and I do not feel that this process has adequately allowed fishing communities to provide feedback to DFO about the future of the fisheries. I especially asked Minister Ashfield to extend the March 14^th deadline for feedback so all concerned groups and individuals have enough time to have their say.

 

This issue is at the very heart of Nova Scotia's coastal communities and it is important that many people employed in the Atlantic fisheries have their voice heard. If fishers are not consulted properly, these outcomes could be devastating - I repeat, devastating - to our industry and our rural communities that depend on the fishery to support their local economies.

 

As we promote Nova Scotia's seafood products all over the world, we must be ready to address eco-labelling and traceability. Third-party seafood sustainability certification, the Marine Stewardship Council in particular, is becoming a requirement for access to certain export markets. The Marine Stewardship Council is at the forefront of eco-labelling, and if important markets demand MSC, we must give it to them.

 

On the eco-labelling front, we have promoted and partnered on 18 different MSC projects and 15 different fisheries. The following projects that have received full MSC certification include: offshore lobster, offshore scallops, Scotia-Fundy haddock, swordfish harpoon, northern shrimp, and Scotian Shelf shrimp. Mr. Chairman, 13 others are in various stages, from beginning the assessment to almost complete, including: Atlantic swordfish long-line, Scotian Shelf and Gulf Nova Scotia snow crab, Atlantic halibut, Scotia-Fundy lobster, LFA 26A lobsters, Atlantic purse seine herring, full bay inshore scallops, Atlantic bluefin tuna, and Scotia-Fundy silver hake.

 

Our Seafood Sector Renewal Program was instrumental in getting most of these off the ground. All species currently in the certification will benefit from certified status. The process will require every bit of co-operation, effort, and resources that the industry can provide. We are also an active participant of the national Traceability Task Group, working with DFO to develop a strategic framework and pursue pilot projects. Eventually, traceability will involve the entire value chain from nets, hooks, and traps to the store shelf.

 

There is tremendous opportunity to grow our aquaculture industry. It is a perfect fit for our rural and coastal communities, our infrastructure, and our marine resources. We are committed to growing a sustainable aquaculture industry, while respecting the environment and sharing the coastal resources. Let me be clear - aquaculture is a legitimate user of the marine resources alongside and in harmony with the traditional fisheries, tourism stakeholders, recreational users, and residential owners. The aquaculture strategy is being developed to demonstrate and support government's commitment to growing aquaculture in an economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable industry, creating year-round jobs and increasing wealth in rural Nova Scotia.

 

The strategy will help our province capitalize on our competitive advantages to create economic development in rural and coastal communities, while at the same time respecting the environment and sharing our coastal resources with others. While Nova Scotians are generally supportive of aquaculture in the marine environment, applications for marine fin-fish sites can face opposition from people and organizations against some farming.

 

The department continues to meet with community groups to create a more accurate picture of what aquaculture is about, and alleviate any concerns about the industry by way of public meetings and industry outreach.

 

Our government has also made steady progress on coastal management. In 2008, the government adopted a draft coastal framework that identified priority actions for coastal management in Nova Scotia. In 2009, we released the State of Nova Scotia's Coast Report. It's a baseline to determine future trends. Last October, we released a draft coastal strategy, followed by a 60-day public consultation period to gain more feedback. This public feedback will help shape the final strategy due late this year.

 

The coastal strategy is government's response to highlight a shared belief with all Nova Scotians that our coastline is a tremendous asset and we must maintain a healthy, safe, and vibrant coastline where we can live, work, and play. The strategy will identify the pressures that can threaten our coastline and the need to apply strong management of the coast and ocean so that these challenges can be addressed. Our coastal strategy will result in coordinated and strategic actions on priority coastal issues.

 

Mr. Chairman, my department is hard at work on a strategy for the ongoing development of commercial fisheries. It is one of the most valuable and key strategic sectors in Nova Scotia. We need a plan that will address the challenges and seize many of the opportunities that I mentioned earlier. The commercial fisheries strategy is about industry and government working together to use our natural advantages to pursue the highly profitable industry to sustain coastal communities and provincial wealth. The strategy will be integrated with jobsHere to develop a competitive and profitable marine seafood industry based on competitive advantages and ocean industry. This government has worked closely with industry groups, and I can say there is tremendous support for the development of a commercial fisheries strategy that will allow the industry to have a full, united voice.

 

Sport fishing remains one of the most popular outdoor activities in Nova Scotia and a draw for tourists around the world, whether it's for fly-fishing salmon on the Margaree, or bass fishing in one of our lakes or rivers. Each year we work with anglers associations, environment groups, wildlife advocates, and river associations to restore fish habitat for the Nova Scotia Sportfish Habitat Fund. In 2011, the Nova Scotia Sportfish Habitat Fund contributed almost $312,000 to support 28 community groups and funded a liming project and two barrier-free accesses to sport-fishing projects. These projects were undertaken by community groups through the Nova Scotia Salmon Association-Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation Adopt-a-Stream program. The Nova Scotia Sportfish Habitat Fund supports restoration, which resulted in more than 50 kilometres of fish passage opening up. Over 143,000 square metres of stream were restored and 19,065 trees planted.

 

We continue to get more and more Nova Scotians involved in recreational sport fishing through programs like Learn to Fish, Becoming an Outdoors-Woman, and Families United with Nature. We are committed to giving interested groups the tools and information they need to take up the sport, including seniors, women, school groups, and families. Again, this is a great activity with many positives for our province, including healthy outdoor recreation, environment restoration, and economic opportunities.

 

Earlier this year I met with many fishers and industry representatives at the annual Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers conference. I asked for their advice on some of the organizational issues that our industry faces and how we can create opportunities if we work together, and I listened to what they had to say. Over those two days my department gathered a lot of valuable information and feedback from all stakeholders and is going to help guide our business planning.

 

Mr. Chairman, our government is committed to the long-term growth and prosperity of our primary resource industries; Nova Scotia fisheries supports vibrant rural communities and the families that they live in. We will continue to work towards making action to support the sector's creation of more efficient, productive, and innovative ways of doing business.

 

Mr. Chairman, this government knows the health of the fishery and the economy of those who fish for a living are important to Nova Scotians and we must do everything we can to keep our primary industries healthy and our resources sustainable. That is why our government is making decisions that are better for Nova Scotians.

 

Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to turn to some of my notes that I made earlier. I think what I want to do now is kind of move right from my prepared text and talk about some of the things that I see in the fisheries. One of the things I observed when I was very young, what I just want to talk about, I can actually recite almost half of the verses of the Ships of Yule. I'm not going to bore you with the detail, but I'm going to ask our Page if we can table that for anybody who wants a copy. It's my favourite poem. There is a famous line in the Ships of Yule by Bliss William Carmen that says, "To little Fundy fishing boats with gunwales painted green . . .", and it goes on and talks about a young man whose dream - he was just a young kid, "My heart was on the sea." I'm not going to bore you with the details but after this is over I could actually recite more of that.

 

I want to point out that at a very early age I had my own "ships of yule" that I played with at the ocean so I can't think of any better honour than to be here as the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and know growing up as a small kid in a fishing community, how important the industry was to me at that time. I just want to reflect on it through my personal experiences.

 

Mr. Chairman, at a very young age I started Irish mossing. Most people around this table are familiar with that and I always say that I can hold my hand out and hold a moss rake in my hand, and I have the privilege of saying that I built my home that I'm in now with that rake that I could hold in my hand, so I think I make a connection there.

 

Also, Mr. Chairman, I've had the privilege of working somewhere close to 15 or 18 years in the aquaculture industry. I had my own personal mussel grow-out site, and I know the struggles and the growing pains of that industry so I can relate to aquaculture from a personal point of view.

 

I know there are some members around the table here who know - and I'm looking at the member for Digby-Annapolis and I know he can confirm this - I also spent three terms as a co-chair on the District 33 advisory committee and held that position for a number of years in the early 1980s. Actually, I believe the member for Digby-Annapolis helped draft the terms of reference for that committee. We have been through some interesting stories, interesting opportunities. I look at the member opposite and see he was involved with me on a number of issues; the Marshall decision in 1999 was one of them. So we have a number of historical events.

 

I also want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that I had the opportunity to spend three terms, or nine years, at the municipal level, warden for the Municipality of Barrington. I guess there are some bragging rights there. Barrington is proclaimed the lobster capital of Canada. So to me, it's some reflection of where I came from. (Interruption) We can talk about that later, I know. I know where the member opposite may be going on that so I'll give him a little heads-up. There are a number of "lobster capitals" of Canada and you can play with the term. I know New Brunswick boasts of that. I know that there is the Pictou area. I know in Cape Breton they may want that too - I also know in the United States. But I think it all brings in a part of promoting the industry and I'm all good with that. I think every MLA around Nova Scotia may boast of being the lobster capital; that's okay, because you're bringing promotion to the industry.

 

I think my earliest reflection as a young fisherman going out on the Irish moss trips was being taught some valuable lessons by my elders. I know I may be drifting off the message here, but my understanding of the fishing industry - a lot of the valuable lessons, even survival techniques, were taught to me by seniors in my community. I remember going out Irish mossing and Mr. Devine would get a lobster crate out and start tying some lobster knots or fishing knots. Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that I can tie an anchor knot or a rolling bowline with my eyes shut. I spent a whole summer doing that at the age of somewhere between 10 and 12. There are many marine knots and - I always end on kind of a positive note - there was also a knot that I learned called a marriage knot and it has lasted for 39 years, so it's kind of a little pun in there.

 

What I just want to close on, before I open up to some questions, is that what I really observed is the growth of our industry in the modern technology. I hope when we open up for questions that some of the Opposition Critics will make note of that because we've really seen a lot of evolution in the modern technology that I've experienced over the last three or four decades.

 

I know as a young boy - I'm using these terms and I hope everybody is familiar with them - I was actually taught to box a compass. I'm a little rusty right now, but every five or 10 degrees on the compass has a name. At one time I could do the 360 degrees around the compass and give you a name for every one of those points, every five to 10 degrees. Don't ask me to do it now. If I had a piece of paper I could come close, but that was taught at a very early age.

 

The point I'm trying to make here is that my grandfather - and many around this table can have some similar experience - always talked about coming from Cape Breton in the swordfishing days in the late 1940s, before the Cape Sable Island causeway was built. If anybody is familiar with the Cape Sable Island causeway, it was built there in the early 1950s. My grandfather started from Cape Breton on a three-day, zero-visibility - similar to what we had today driving down here with thick fog - and for three days they steamed in a boat making six or eight knots. My father said the first land they saw was coming through Barrington Passage where the present causeway is today.

 

I marvelled at that story because I'm familiar with all the modern technology that we have today, so I think that's remarkable. That was typical of the stories of that time: how well they could learn to navigate, and the term "dead-reckoning." The term "dead-reckoning" means knowing where you need to be at all times - where you are at all times. It is marine terminology and all the older fishermen had that ability. I think it was something that was very important and they passed that on to future generations that have all the modern technology now when you can literally put an anchor in that glass with the GPS systems.

 

Before I get into my questions, I just want to talk about another portion that I kind of built up from when I was a child. I had my own "ships of yule" to use in all this navigational structure that we got passed on from grandparent to father to son, to where we are today.

 

One of the decisions that I didn't speak about earlier was the court decision on establishing The Hague Line. That was the boundary dispute between Canada and the U.S., and I'm guessing it was somewhere in the mid-1980s - I haven't got the date, but I want to say 1987 or 1984, somewhere in there, but I think everybody is familiar with what I'm talking about here. It was a boundary dispute between Canada and the United States and it went to the court in The Hague.

 

My recollection of that decision was told to me by a number of people in my community. The decision was based on the testimonies that came from the historical attachment to fishing in the northeastern portion of the Georges Bank. That testimony was gathered, by word of mouth and tape-recorded, from the people who actually participated in the fisheries on the Georges Bank. That was fishermen from Nova Scotia: scalloping, swordfishing, and groundfishing. People in my community testified and that information was actually sent to the court in The Hague, and what I've been told is that was a crucial factor in making a direct link of historical attachment to the fishing grounds and that's how we won that portion. One-sixth of Georges Bank is now owned by Canada and I can boast that it's the most valuable one-sixth of Georges Bank, so there is a lot of historical attachment to our fishing industry.

 

What I want to conclude before I get into some questions is that, from a boy, there is no question that my love or my heart was on the sea. From the experience of our fishermen, that knowledge was passed on and it's evident that this is important to coastal communities. I made reference a number of times that it's the economic engine, and I truly believe that this is what makes it work in rural Nova Scotia.

 

If we look back yesterday about what took place - and when I first came here, elected in 2006, one of my commitments was to make sure that young fishermen would have access to capital. In yesteryear - before 2006 - young fishermen, new entries, could not get access to capital to get an end price and I said that is wrong, that needs to be changed. I ran on that and campaigned on that, and I can tell you now, boastfully, that has changed. I will welcome some questions, hopefully, that we are continuing to improve the loan board and make sure that we protect the independent fishers across Nova Scotia.

 

I alluded to the owner-operator policy and I really believe that we have to get that right because this is where I want to go. Yesterday we had a number of issues that needed to be addressed; today we're evidence that we are serious about addressing these issues and we want to talk about them. I also campaigned that we would not take a backseat when there was an issue that is before our federal government and when it's something that is as important as the owner-operator, we are going to be there at the microphone and demand that they do not shortchange these coastal communities and we protect the independent fishermen.

 

What I want to conclude on is - just like that small boy that had that vision or that imagination of the "ships of yule" - this government, this minister, has a vision of what needs to take place for tomorrow. We need to preserve our independent fishermen and we have a number of strategies - and I hope we get the questions on it - talking about our coastal communities, our commercial fisheries, and especially a strategy on aquaculture.

 

I truly believe that Nova Scotia, with our 13,000 kilometres of shoreline, our uniqueness of the Bay of Fundy, and the lunar effects on that, is something that is world recognized. I know that we never won to make it the seventh wonder of the world, but to me it is "the" wonder of the world - the Bay of Fundy. We are truly blessed when it comes to a marine habitat where we can grow our fish - and I know I've heard the member for Digby-Annapolis say that we can grow our fish - I know that we can and it can be done in a sustainable and economic way that we protect the environment, and I'm confident with our strategies that we will accomplish that.

 

So just in finishing, before opening up to questions, I started off as a young child, I had my own "ships of yule" and that child had imagination or a vision that they thought was perfect in how you enjoyed that. I want to say that I grew up in a fishing community, like many around this table have, and I can tell you that we, as elected representatives, are going to stand up for independent fishermen and I really believe that we can make it stronger, and with our strategy, we have a future to move forward. I welcome at this time any questions you may have on fisheries and aquaculture. Thank you.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have three hours and 13 minutes remaining for today's estimates. We will begin with an hour for the Liberal caucus.

 

The honourable member for Richmond.

 

HON. MICHEL SAMSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister, in your budget document on Page 12.3, it has under Programs and Services, Office of the Minister, the estimate in 2011-12 was $570,000 but the forecast came in at $438,000, well below, and yet your estimate for 2012-13 is increased to $601,000. I'm wondering if you could explain what the differences are - how did you come under and now you look like you're going to be spending more next year?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Thank you very much to the member opposite for the question. Vacancies of $70,000; decreased travel, $37,000; decreased equipment, $11,000; and miscellaneous, $14,000 - the estimates for 2011-12 and 2012-13 have changed, $31,000. I hope that . . .

 

MR. SAMSON: So why the increase? It looks like you found some savings there, which is great, but now you're turning around and showing an increase of $31,000, although really it's an increase from $438,000. What are you spending that money on?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the executive director from Agriculture has moved over, that's the reason for this.

 

MR. SAMSON: So the executive director from Agriculture is now over with Fisheries, and that's the added salary that you're adding into your budget?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Thank you for your patience, I apologize, but I just wanted to get clarification on that. Mr. Muise is going to Fisheries and my understanding is my existing deputy, Mr. Roach, is taking responsibility for Fisheries and Agriculture. Thank you.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, just for my understanding, minister, under your department, the five staff that you are going to have, I'm assuming, is the deputy minister under that or is he over in Agriculture?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I know the question you're asking me - we'll get our staff to give you a detailed description of what you're asking for, who is moving where and what their job is - details.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, I appreciate that but I guess it shouldn't be very hard. I think Mr. Roach is there as the associate deputy minister and Mr. Muise is there as the executive director. Who else makes up the staff in your office?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is Joan Cottell, who is an assistant there, is also in Fisheries.

 

MR. SAMSON: It's going to be a long day if we're going to keep doing this, Mr. Chairman. That's three - you are projecting five, so there's two more missing. Who else have you got here? You've got Mr. Roach, Mr. Muise, Ms. Cottell - who are the other two? Mr. Roach and Mr. Muise may have secretaries, as well, I'm assuming.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mark Laventure and Joan Cottell are my assistants, and then there's the assistant to the assistant deputy. We'll get clarification on that in writing, so more detail. Thank you.

 

MR. SAMSON: So as Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the salary of your executive assistant, Mr. Laventure, comes out of the Office of the Minister, is that correct?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, that is correct - my secretary, Joan, and my EA, Mark Laventure.

 

MR. SAMSON: I'm assuming Mr. Roach's secretary is the fifth person? Okay.

 

Just for my own understanding, the position of associate deputy minister, when was that created?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is the position was created in February 2007.

 

MR. SAMSON: And has Mr. Roach been in that position since February 2007?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay. So let me just understand here, in your forecast for 2011-12, you're showing three employees, full-time equivalents are down to three. You estimated 6.5, you went down to three, and now you're at five. I know we've added Mr. Muise, so that makes one - who is the second person being added here? Where was the drop?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, the FTE estimate was 2.5. The vacancies: one executive director, one executive secretary, and 0.1 clerical. Thank you.

 

MR. SAMSON: For the executive assistant to the minister, did that always come out of the Office of the Minister? Has that been the standard?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes.

 

MR. SAMSON: I'm curious - do you also have an executive assistant for Environment?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: My understanding is they are budgeted half for each.

 

MR. SAMSON: So it's the same individual doing both departments - 50 per cent gets billed to the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and 50 per cent gets billed to the Department of Environment.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: That's my understanding, yes.

 

MR. SAMSON: Under Programs and Services, your estimate for Aquaculture was $1.748 million, but you came in at $1.8 million. I'm wondering, what was the increase that caused you to go over your estimates?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The estimate for 2011-12, the forecast change was $75,000, and my understanding is that was for consulting services for lease applications.

 

MR. SAMSON: Who was that paid to?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: My understanding is that Lura Consulting was paid that amount of money for different application works dealing with aquaculture leases and such.

 

MR. SAMSON: This work was done for the department or on behalf of an applicant?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: On behalf of the department.

 

MR. SAMSON: I'm just curious - why would this not have been done internally? I know we have many people in the department with significant experience. Why are we going outside to pay for consultants on the issue of leases?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: My understanding is that our department is extremely busy on public consultation and other priorities, but certainly the workload was an issue.

 

MR. SAMSON: Is there a specific report that this company provided for the department?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Could I have clarification on the question again?

 

MR. SAMSON: The $75,000 that was paid to this company - did they have a report; is it a public document that we can see what we paid $75,000 for?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: That service was for lease reviews and when you go through a leasing application for the consultant firm to do that particular work to review the application and such.

 

MR. SAMSON: I'm going to ask again - do you have an actual document that shows the work that they did that's available?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: There is no public document, but this is work that this particular consulting firm does when they facilitate meetings, like public meetings that you hold for lease applications and such. There's no actual public document that would be constructed. This was just for public consultation for them to help facilitate meetings when they're open to the public and such.

 

MR. SAMSON: Could you advise which specific sites that these public consultations were held on?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: These particular scenarios that I'm pointing out would be in communities like Shelburne, for instance, that are going through licensed lease applications; and the Eastern Shore, if you're familiar with that particular application.

 

MR. SAMSON: I'm wondering if the minister could confirm whether this $75,000 - what did you say the name of the company was again that carried this out?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: We'll get the details on that for you.

 

MR. SAMSON: Is this something that went out to tender?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Usually that's the procedure but we'll get that information for the honourable member.

 

MR. SAMSON: I guess I'm just going to ask again, it's my understanding there's probably going to be a number of applications coming forward for various leases. Is it going to be the policy of continuing to use outside consulting companies, rather than existing staff, to carry this out? What is the intention moving forward?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: This particular company that we're making reference to has a standing offer with the department and does business similar to this on a regular basis.

 

MR. SAMSON: Is this the only payment made to the consulting company from your department in the past fiscal year?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The member opposite is asking very detailed information. We'll take that under consideration and we'll review that and try to get the correct information to the member opposite for that detailed information.

 

MR. SAMSON: I'm going to have some more detailed questions as well. Your estimates are published so it shouldn't be hard to find whether this company was paid any other monies or not. Anyway, we'll wait on that one.

 

The decision to move the Aquaculture Loan Board over to the Department of Agriculture, I'm curious, what is the basis of that decision? More importantly, you had Bruce Cox, who was the executive director of the Fisheries Loan Board - I'm not sure who the executive director is for the Farm Loan Board. Is there going to be only one executive director now, or how is that merger going to take place?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, each loan board will have its own CEO. That's my understanding.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, so I'm at a bit of a loss. Why did we merge the two loan boards if they're still operating separately? Where is the saving in merging the two boards?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: What we're looking for is efficiencies in our work. It's something that we want to do and our government is committed to that, so we'll be looking for efficiencies any time we make an improvement. That's something that we'll be doing.

 

They will be reporting to a common director and they will be reporting back to that director in the next 18 months. That's something that we're committed to. Unlike previous governments, we want to live within our means and continue on getting back to balance, so that's something that we intend to do. Any time we can look for efficiencies and doing something that can save some money, that's something that we'll definitely be looking at.

 

MR. SAMSON: I wonder if you could tell me what efficiencies have been realized by the merger of those two loan boards.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, to the honourable member, they've just been merged as of the first of April, so we'll be paying close attention to this.

 

MR. SAMSON: So you merged the two boards and are hoping to achieve efficiency - you can't tell us today, here are the full-time equivalents that will be reduced; here are the savings we expect to realize? Is this like a trial and error that you're going by or can you give us a sense of what specific savings you expect to achieve in combining the two boards together?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, a correction, the boards have not been merged - I apologize if I misled the member opposite. We'll get clarification on that and get the details to the honourable member.

 

MR. SAMSON: The Fisheries Loan Board is no longer under your administration. I think you appreciate the importance that plays in the future of the industry. With all due respect, minister, I would certainly hope you'd be able to tell us today why the Fisheries Loan Board has gone over to Agriculture and what savings you expect to achieve from that and why that no longer remains under your administration. I think that's something you should be able to answer - hopefully - for us today.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: We'll continue to try to clarify this but the Fisheries Loan Board is still under the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture's mandate. Only the staff, to my understanding, has been realigned or whatever, but the Fisheries Loan Board is still under the Fisheries and Aquaculture mandate.

 

MR. SAMSON: So you're responsible for it administratively but not from a budgetary perspective, is that the case?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Under the mandate I am responsible for the board, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is responsible for the Fisheries Loan Board.

 

MR. SAMSON: So I have to ask, why is it over in Agriculture? How have taxpayers benefited from moving the funding for the loan board over to Agriculture? That's the fundamental question here, what was the purpose of that whole exercise?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The funding is with the board.

 

MR. SAMSON: But not in your department anymore?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The funding has always been with the board and it still remains with the board.

 

MR. SAMSON: All right, let's try this again. On Page 12.4 of your estimates, under Programs and Services, Fisheries and Aquaculture Loan Board, your 2011-12 estimate is $779,000 and your forecast is $745,000. Your estimate for 2012-13 - there's no estimate. Why? Because it says it was transferred to the Department of Agriculture. So you're no longer the minister who is funding the Fisheries Loan Board. Obviously it's the Minister of Agriculture who is now funding this board, which begs the question, why was this transferred to Agriculture to start with?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, again I'll try to - it's just the staff, it's not the board. Hopefully that will clarify it for the member opposite.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, why is the staff that administers the Fisheries Loan Board transferred over to Agriculture? What savings or what benefit is there to the taxpayers of Nova Scotia that the staff of the Fisheries Loan Board is now under the control of the Department of Agriculture?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Again, this is just the staff, it's not the board and again, we're looking at one or two years down the road where we can make efficiencies and make cost savings that are going to help all Nova Scotians. I can assure you that the loan board is still very much there, under the mandate of the provincial Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

 

MR. SAMSON: So the Department of Agriculture is now paying for the staff but they're going to report to you, as the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Is that what I'm understanding?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: That is correct.

 

MR. SAMSON: So you're telling me today that you're unable to identify at least one cent of savings from this transfer that is going to be one or two years down the road before you'll be able to tell us, or somebody will be able to tell us, whether this has achieved any sort of savings at all?

 

Usually when you're going to do this there's some sort of a plan, there's something in place to say here's what our vision is, here's where we think we can save money, we can reduce staff, we can find efficiencies. Does any such document exist, or is this someone's idea and we'll have to wait to see whether this has worked or not?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, it is something we believe with our common accounting practices that we're going to achieve the efficiencies that we're looking at. Again, this is a government that wants to take the fisheries in a new and different direction, and we're going to achieve these efficiencies.

 

I also want to point out to the member opposite that I talked about living in the past in my opening remarks. This is something that's going to better our fishing communities. If I look at the loan board, what I talked about earlier in my presentation is that before 2006 young fishermen couldn't get into the fishery because they couldn't get access to capital, and we changed that. We changed that on an election campaign and we fought for it.

 

I can tell you, I have a pamphlet here and I can go into great detail - the improvements in the fisheries and this loan board are not what the member opposite is talking about when we're talking about $75,000 here or $75,000 there. I'm talking about a pamphlet - there are going to be benefits to the fisheries in Nova Scotia and I'll go into great details about what this can accomplish.

 

One thing I've learned is that young fishermen, when I go down to the wharf, they look at me and they say, Mr. Belliveau, I would love to get into the fishery but I just simply can't get access to capital. I say well, excuse me, we have a pamphlet and we have improved the Fisheries Loan Board, and you can now have access and go out, if you have a new species or you are new entries, you can have access to capital.

 

Now when I go down to the wharf, I see young fishermen looking at me and saying, thank you very much, thank you for accomplishing that, thank you for changing the policy that was there for decades. I can go back to my research on the first Fisheries Loan Board scenario or application that came out of Ottawa in the late 1930s and it was for fishermen to have access to capital for boats or new engines or any of the gear that they may have. If you fast-forward to somewhere in the 2000 era, young fishermen did not have access to capital and there's a big lag about why we need to improve this loan board.

 

The member opposite may want to talk about some statistics here about where we're changing and trying to make some efficiency, but I have all the confidence in the world that we're doing the right thing, making the right decisions, for all Nova Scotians and all governments to live within their means. We're going to improve that, and I make reference to this particular document here. It shows a leaflet about improving access to capital for fishermen and fishers across Nova Scotia. I know it's something that I can stand here and testify and say that we have made the improvements.

 

It's not only in Nova Scotia; it's the envy of the Atlantic Provinces. When I go to other councils or other conferences across Atlantic Canada, I talk with the people there who represent their fishing industry and they do not - I repeat, they do not - have a policy that is anywhere close to this loan board policy. So if you want to stand here and talk about where the efficiencies and benefits are to Nova Scotians, the benefits are in this, because young fishermen now have access to capital, they can go out and buy an enterprise that costs literally millions of dollars and can have access to that, where they never had the opportunity years ago. This government, these members of government, changed that and will continue to make improvements, and we'll have the best policy and make sure that rural Nova Scotia and our coastal communities are there for the future. Again, to me, that's what improving on a loan board is all about. Thank you for the question.

 

MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, I know the minister pointed out that the policy was changed in 2006, and I'm sure the member would be aware that in 2006 he was not the minister and it was not his government that was in place. It was the previous administration that made that change.

 

Right now we have a minister in front of us telling us that his staff and the loan board have gone to Agriculture for efficiency purposes, yet you have not been able to point out to me an efficiency that will be realized by doing so. This is not questioning the merits of the board or anything else, it's questioning why this board be would be moved away from the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. You've claimed efficiencies, balancing the budget, living within our means, everything - fine. Just give me one example of an efficiency that you're going to achieve or full-time equivalent positions that are going to be reduced, or anything that shows why you would move the loan board over to the Farm Loan Board and how that's going to create efficiencies. Apparently that's a question no one was prepared to answer today, so allow me to move on to something else that possibly we'll be able to get an answer for.

 

On Page 12.4, under Programs and Services, Inland Fisheries, Administration, the estimate for 2011-12 is $306,000; your estimate for 2012-13 is $417,000. I'm wondering, why is an almost $100,000 increase predicted under Administration when the full-time equivalent staff doesn't appear to be changing?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: My understanding is there's one additional staff member. They have moved from the Salmon Restoration Program to Administration. It's the manager.

 

MR. SAMSON: So if you're looking at the full-time equivalents for these four headings, I take it you're just taking one from the Salmon Restoration Program and moving it up to Administration?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: My understanding is that it's just a reclassification.

 

MR. SAMSON: A reclassification, okay, so that individual moving up from the Salmon Restoration Program will now be paid out of Administration. Is that the case?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: That's correct, yes.

 

MR. SAMSON: I'm looking over at Marine Fisheries and Field Services, under Programs and Services, the estimate for 2011-12 was $3.384 million; your forecast came in at $3.236 million; and then your estimate is back up to $3.566 million for 2012-13. I'm wondering if you could explain the increase there.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: My understanding is that these are for lobster research, for additional funding - this is a good-news story - for a lobster moulting quality sampling, $128,000; lobster collection projects, $38,000; lobster size and mortality, $15,000; and rockweed management, $70,000.

 

I would just like to emphasize the lobster moulting and the quality sampling, $128,000 - to me, I think I could probably spend some time speaking about that because, first of all, I talked about some of the climate change that we're having, that we're experiencing now as we speak. I know, in my lifetime of dealing with lobsters, some of the difficulties and struggle that the lobster industry is experiencing now. A great deal of work and focus is going on this topic of lobster moulting, and I think we have to understand the questions of science regarding that.

 

In my experiences of fishing, in November and December - if I could hit the reset button and go back 20 years - typically, they were all hard-shell lobsters. Now, with the opening of our seasons, with the climate change that I've observed - this is not proven or scientific facts, there's no scientific document that I can point to, this is just what fishermen have observed - we've certainly seen climate change that we've observed over the last two decades or decade and a half. We see rising temperatures that affect the migration of lobsters and a number of other species that are affected by climate change. This is one thing that we need to understand and I think this is good money.

 

I really appreciate the member opposite bringing up this question because I like to talk about the science that needs to be done when it comes to moulting, because I think we all want to understand - 20 years ago when you fished on a 50-fathom edge, lobsters took probably three days of soak time - yes, I said "soak time" - for a trap to set with a certain reasonable water temperature. It took three days of soak time for the trap to catch at least a pound or two pounds of lobsters per trap. Now we're experiencing on a 50-fathom edge, we're seeing record catches in less than 24 hours of soak time. There is a significant change in our environment and the industry needs to deal with that, it needs to understand that.

 

To me, for us to talk about putting good money into a project, I welcome the opportunity to talk about it because that's what I want to talk about. We need to understand the science of that because what's happening, traditionally in the last decade, we are seeing more and more lobsters in the beginning of the opening of our Fall fisheries coming in with soft shell and low meat yield lobsters. I'm talking about the Fall fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia - the upper bay of Nova Scotia - and we've seen record catches. To me, the issue is that we need to understand what is happening there and understand why it is that more and more percentage of these lobsters are soft shell with low meat yield.

 

I personally believe - from a fisherman's point of view - that it's weather-related. As you know, in the past, when you have cold temperatures, traditionally lobsters may moult in July or August. That was something that, again, my forefathers told me about the moulting process. But if you have warm temperatures, you are going to see a higher percentage of lobsters moulting nearer or later into the Fall fishery, nearer the opening of that lobster season.

 

So this question has a tremendous impact on the fisheries, particularly the Fall fisheries as we move from Grand Manan, New Brunswick, the Maine border, and Nova Scotia. The industry has to understand that, because to me it's like dropping a pebble into a calm body of water and if you drop the pebble, the ripple effect goes the whole way across that water column, and this soft-shell moulting issue is the pebble dropped in the industry and the industry needs to know that. What I can tell you - and my colleagues here today - is that we also supported the Lobster Council of Canada and I'm very appreciative of knowing that our sister provinces across the Atlantic Provinces also support that - dealing with this question right here about lobster moulting and the quality sampling. It's something that we need to understand.

 

When we went to talk with our colleagues across the Atlantic Provinces, I had great confidence that this was something that we needed to support. We need to support the seed money to get the Lobster Council off the ground to focus on the issues that are having an effect on the lobster industry. We know that the Lobster Council has been established, and as I speak, they're actually out there doing working groups and they're going around the Atlantic Provinces speaking with industry, speaking with all the parties, and I alluded to that in my speech that there is a lot of work being done by this group and it's something that the industry wants to address. This lobster group is putting together information regarding this topic about lobster moulting and understanding that quality sampling is something that the industry has needed. So any time we have an opportunity to put money into something like this, something that's really going to have an impact, I think we'll see results.

 

So it gets back to the point that we, as a government, are going to spend our money wisely and we're going to make sure that we live within our means, and if we can find efficiencies in any department, if we can save thousands of dollars, we're going to spend that money wisely and put it on projects like what I'm talking about right here. So the moulting lobster quality issue is something that's really important. I can go into great lengths where you see more and more of the highest percentage of lobsters going towards processing instead of markets or the fresh market industry.

 

Mr. Chairman, again, I can point back to my youth and my early years in the lobster industry when the lobster industries that I pointed out earlier, those lobster industries that had their opening day in the Fall fishery, in the Fall time of the year, they always depended on live market lobsters, and because of the climate change, they never had to worry about this issue. Twenty years ago there was never an issue dealing with moulting of lobsters or meat yields. Today we are faced with this issue because I believe it's dealing directly with climate change and the rising temperatures. So any time you have an opportunity to spend money wisely, you direct that money to the appropriate place. To me, we can talk about the loan board, which we did earlier, but we have made improvements when it comes to the loan board.

 

Again, I'm very confident and proud of the fact that before I entered politics in 2006, there was not an opportunity to have access to capital through the loan board. We improved that and we are going to work to improve it better and make it better in the future. When it comes to lobster moulting, we are going to have the right science to do what's best for the industry, and we'll continue to make the right decisions and understand what we know that can help these coastal communities. Like I said earlier, the coastal communities have the primary resource when it comes to fishing, they are the economic engines that drive these communities, so when you have a questions on lobster moulting and quality issues and sampling, you want to understand that you have the minister's ear, and your Cabinet colleagues and your caucus colleagues, in addressing an issue.

 

Like I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, it's like when you drop a pebble in the water - it has a ripple effect, so we need to get this one right when it comes to talking about lobster moulting and the quality sampling. That's something that the science and research council has done. They have a number of fishermen across Nova Scotia and, in fact, I was involved at one time with them. They have sampling traps that go out and each fisherman is issued one or two tags - I forget now what the priority is, but the science and research council and the fishermen, the scientists and fishermen will work together on an issue. In the past many of them were in juvenile recruitment, and they actually went out and used these traps to understand how many small lobsters were in the biomass of a given area. This was valuable information that they recruited from fishermen on an annual basis.

 

I remember when I was doing this, Mr. Chairman, we also had a temperature probe that went on there, and I actually got to experience a temperature probe that you had in this lobster trap and it was there for the duration of six months. One thing that I really paid attention to was I made sure that I paid attention to where I set that trap. I didn't want to get it severed off and lose the tag or the little temperature probe, because I wanted to know what that information was and it was going to be captured for the duration of six months. At the end of the six-month season, we sent in the little temperature probe and we got a readout of what the temperatures were on the bottom of the ocean for the six-month period.

 

It was interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, if you were really into financing or understanding lobsters, you could actually put the wages that you earned from the opening day, which is the last Monday in November to the last day of May, and I put down the scale of the money that I generated from my humble little business and you put the graph of the temperature in line with the temperature of the water for six months. It was interesting to note that when the temperatures were the highest, your pay was the highest. You know where I'm going with this, so it was kind of interesting to look at that on a printout of over six months.

 

To me these questions are important. Fishermen have learned to understand that the science regarding water temperature is something important, for lobsters especially, to pay attention to. So when you asked a question like the member opposite asked a question about why we are putting the money into moulting and quality sampling, I can go into great detail as to why this is important to the industry, because the industry wants to understand why they are seeing more lobsters that have soft shell at the opening of the season.

 

It's an interesting question because if I can go back 20 years ago when the water temperature was colder, this issue was never a problem because our industry always looked after - we had what was called a winter fishery - and because of the cold temperatures, we had one of the best premium lobsters in North America at that time because it was related to our water temperature and the lobsters had moulted earlier, sometime in August. But now we see climate change and we see our water staying warmer over a longer period of time. To me, from a fisherman's point of view, this is why we need the science because it's not proven, it has not been documented, but the water temperature has increased over those 20 years. We're seeing warmer temperatures as we move closer to the opening of our lobster seasons.

 

As you look at Maine, the upper part of New Brunswick, the Bay of Fundy, and Nova Scotia, the point I'm trying to make is the industries - and I believe the Lobster Council of Canada will be reflecting on this point that I'm trying to make that the Fall fisheries will be dealing with the issue that I'm describing now because of the warm temperatures, and it will certainly have an impact on how much volume of lobsters are going to be processed.

 

Now, Mr. Chairman, lobsters are - naturally, we would call them a cannery but there's all different high-end - you could have lobster tails that may go to the cruise ship lines. There's a good market for that particular product, but a number of years ago most of our product went totally to the live lobster market. I suggest to you that we have moved away from that and this is something that we need to understand when we're talking about putting money towards a project.

 

Again, I can't emphasize enough - I really believe that we are dead-on when it comes to putting our money to where we can have the most impact on an industry. The industry needs to understand this question and the science is there, it will help us understand - are we understanding what's going on with the lobsters moulting near the opening of that season?

 

I know that may be a bit of a lengthy answer but, Mr. Chairman, I welcome the member bringing that question to my attention. Again, there are a number of scientific questions that we really are focusing on. Again, the science and research council is something that we can steer towards getting more data that can help our industry. I thank the member opposite for the question.

 

MR. SAMSON: I appreciate the brief answer to the question. I wonder, minister, could you inform us who is Vernon Shea in your department?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is he is a vessel inspector for the loan board.

 

MR. SAMSON: He's a vessel inspector. Is that inspection done prior to vessels being purchased or approved to the loan board, or is it a follow-up - how does that work?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that inspector inspects during construction of a vessel - I can explain that to you - or a used vessel. Again, we need some time to understand what the importance of this inspection does. For a used vessel, we want to make sure that not only does the potential buyer get the value that he deserves, but to me we also - especially on a used vessel, want to make sure that the price is not overinflated. When you're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars - I've seen a number of times in my life that you need a professional to ensure that the value of that enterprise is appreciated because you're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars for some of these enterprises. Do I know how old that boat is, how old is the shaft in that boat, how much wear and tear is on that shaft? You're talking about thousands of dollars when you talk about a shaft or a propeller; that's something that you really need to understand.

 

The other thing is - what type of engine is it? Is it a certified engine that can be easily sailed through the United States? What type of engine is included? What type of electronics? How old is the boat? It goes on and on, but to me, these are valuable services that are being conducted and actually, as a loan board, we require that these inspections be done.

 

Again, on construction of a new vessel, the members opposite can appreciate that you're talking about $100,000 a boat. It's not something that you can pick up at the local hardware store and go for a little ride on a recreational fishing trip. These are commercial vessels; they're very expensive so you need to follow, when they're constructed, to make sure that the value is there and that all the work, the detail that's involved in these contracts are there protecting the buyer. To me it's something that I can speak about in personal experience, knowing that to have a certified inspector aboard that boat is making sure that all the equipment is working and the safety of the individuals that you are encompassing or using on that enterprise is something that is appreciated.

 

The long story is that these inspectors do a service and our loan board really appreciates the value that they do. Thank you.

 

MR. SAMSON: Is Mr. Shea the only inspector that does such work for the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: There are two fishing vessel inspectors and we only have one position filled for most of the year. We need two inspectors and now we have them filled.

 

MR. SAMSON: I'll tell you the reason I'm asking. Mr. Shea is reporting travel expenses of $24,000, which far exceeds any of the other staff that you have. Now, if he was doing the job of two people, I guess that could possibly explain the high travel expenses. I wonder if the minister could explain whether that's a normal travel cost for an employee of this department.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: My understanding is that this one inspector is doing the work of two and he's travelling all over Nova Scotia. As the member opposite is familiar with the boatyards across Nova Scotia, there's a lot of work and I can assure you that one inspector doing that work is going to see some travel time.

 

MR. SAMSON: I'm looking under Grants and Contributions, and the previous amounts total $7.4 million. Your total budget for the department was $8.4 million and you're forecasting $8.7 million, so a significant portion of it is handed out under Grants and Contributions.

 

There's a number of them that I was hoping for a quick explanation for but prior to that, I'm wondering if the minister could provide just very quickly, who oversees these grant applications and who approves them? That's a significant amount of money and some of these grants are in excess of $0.5 million; some are very close to $0.5 million, $0.25 million. I'm just curious, who specifically in your department would be the ones responsible for screening these applications and final approval of them?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: My understanding is that is through the Innovation division and the staff are the technical staff who will be reviewing those applications.

 

MR. SAMSON: The Innovation division?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The Innovation group in the Marine Division.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, and who makes up this Innovation division?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The manager is Bruce Osborne, and we can get you more detail on that if it's required.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, because I'm wondering, does the department specifically advertise programs that are available under this Innovation division? I'll tell you, I'm seeing some grants here all over the place. For example, I'm seeing some for harbour authorities, which I didn't believe we actually provided any funding for anymore and I'm pleasantly surprised to see they've made a comeback. There had been an old program for wharves, once upon a time, but that got cut back years ago. I see where harbour authorities and inshore fishermen associations are included in that.

 

Is it possible to provide us with - is it specific programs that are available under this Innovation division, because I know just talking with my colleague here, we're both thinking we have to let our own areas know that this funding is available so I'm just curious, are there specific programs that you could make us aware of that we can share with our own constituents under the Grants and Contributions part of your budget?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The program that the member opposite is talking about is over now, it has expired, but a lot of information regarding the program was on our Web site.

 

MR. SAMSON: So there's no longer any funding for harbour authorities?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: No.

 

MR. SAMSON: No studies, no nothing - harbour authorities do not qualify for any type of funding?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Most of this money came from the Community Development Trust Fund, which has expired now, and that was over a three-year term. That was a very successful program, Mr. Chairman; unfortunately, it has expired.

 

MR. SAMSON: And that was partially federal funding as well, wasn't it?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: That's correct.

 

MR. SAMSON: Just for my own understanding, under Grants and Contributions - obviously we haven't gotten the ones for the last fiscal year - is all of this provincial money or is there some federal money attached to some of that that we're seeing here today?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The Community Development Trust, it's my understanding that the majority of that money was federal.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, but the list that we're seeing here in front of us today, I know for the fiscal year that has just ended, we'll only see that supplementary detail later on this summer, probably. For what we see here, is this strictly all provincial money?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The program the member opposite is referring to, it's my understanding that the Community Development Trust, which has expired as we speak, was all federal money. The part that we see in these estimates was related to this particular program.

 

MR. SAMSON: All right. A number of these I had questions about, and I know my time is getting short but I see, for example, Louisbourg Seafoods Ltd. was granted, for all intents and purposes, $300,000. I'm just curious if you could advise what that $300,000 was for.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, my understanding is that was for purchases of new shrimp equipment in product lines regarding the particular request that the member opposite asked for.

 

MR. SAMSON: I'm just curious - does your Innovation division do any work at all with NSBI? I guess the question for some of these companies would be why they would not be going through NSBI but instead are going straight to your department for a significant amount of money. I'm just curious, is there any interaction between NSBI and Economic and Rural Development and Tourism with your department, or is your department operating on its own when it comes to the approval of these types of requests?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Minister, before you answer that question, there's one minute left in the time for the Liberal Party.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, I appreciate your questions first of all but this was independent, this money was independent from Nova Scotia Business Inc. So I just want to be clear on that.

 

MR. SAMSON: I guess my question is, is there any interaction between your staff and NSBI, like when this type of application comes in for $300,000, is it simply your staff that looks at this or is there also interaction with NSBI and Economic and Rural Development and Tourism as far as it comes to making such a request for assistance?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, we work with Nova Scotia Business Inc. in coordination with Economic and Rural Development and Tourism on projects like this. So we work closely together to accommodate these applications.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The time for the Liberal caucus has expired.

 

The honourable member for Cape Breton West.

 

MR. ALFIE MACLEOD: Mr. Chairman, I just want to welcome the minister and his staff, and thank them for being here to shed some light on some of the issues that we see in this year's budget.

 

I would just like to talk a little bit about aquaculture and in particular, right now, the mussel leases in St. Ann's Bay are coming to a point where they should be renewed. I just wonder if the minister has had any discussions at this point with the proponents on that issue.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the member opposite for his line of questions and I want to tell the member opposite that our staff is meeting with the owner of that particular site and it's something that we'll be reviewing as we move forward. I actually can also tell the member I'm very familiar with that area. I actually had the pleasure of going out there and touring the site in person. So, again, I appreciate the question dealing with aquaculture. I really appreciate you bringing up this topic because it's something that I addressed in my opening remarks and I assure you that my understanding of the site is something of importance to me and if you missed my opening remarks, I can tell you that I actually had owned an aquaculture site, a mussel site, so I'm very familiar with the topic.

 

I'm familiar with aquaculture but, you know, when you talk about aquaculture, sometimes it's important not only to hear your own opinion on aquaculture, I think it's also important to understand what other people across Nova Scotia may have said about aquaculture. I would just like to kind of refresh the memories of some of the members around the table of people's views on aquaculture.

 

MR. MACLEOD: I just want to know if the lease is being renewed and if talks are going on - that's all I want to know.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, if I could continue.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate the question and I want to emphasize . . .

 

MR. MACLEOD: Did he answer the question?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: . . . as I spoke earlier, I think it's important that we understand what other Nova Scotians talk about aquaculture. I believe I'm on record many times as saying it's a valued industry and it can be in harmony with our traditional fishing industry, and it needs to be done in a sustainable economic and environmental way, but I think it's more about what other people talk about. So I want to just quote a few people who may have had some comments on aquaculture.

 

I will go into some detail here and I'm going to be quoting some previous ministers and some prominent citizens across Nova Scotia, Mr. Chairman, so at your leisure I can quote and I can table them for the Chair's consideration.

 

Mr. Chairman, this was published on September 8, 2008, an op-ed by Nova Scotia Fisheries and Aquaculture Minister Ron Chisholm. "The Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture is working in collaboration with all levels of government and community stakeholders to identify and access viable aquaculture sites across the province, including a potential new site in Port Mouton."

 

I would like to take the opportunity to explain the thorough process my department used to access prominent new aquaculture sites.

 

MR. MACLEOD: What about the leases in St. Ann's Bay? I want to know about the leases at St. Ann's Bay. I'm sure what Mr. Chisholm, as minister, said was very important.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, Mr. MacLeod, I believe the minister has the floor.

 

MR. MACLEOD: Well, I'm sorry, but I thought the subject here today was to allow the Opposition members to question people on specific items that were in the budget and one of the questions that I have asked is, what is the status of the negotiations between the Province of Nova Scotia and the lease on mussels for St. Ann's Bay? That was the question. What a former minister said about aquaculture in Nova Scotia, it was probably very important but the question today is what the status is on those issues. I really want to get on with this.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacLeod, I believe the minister was in the process of answering that question.

 

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I don't think he is.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sometimes with the minister, you never know where he's going but I do believe he's on his way there.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your patience and, again, I'll continue to quote from September 8, 2008, Minister Ron Chisholm. "Each application comes to the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture and goes through a comprehensive review process. An environmental assessment is conducted by highly qualified federal scientists at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The application must pass their scrutiny before coming forward to me."

 

Mr. Chairman, when a licence is granted, our provincial staff use sound science to conduct regular environmental monitoring. They collect information about sediment, water quality, temperatures, and currents. They also take underwater videos on sediment on the site floors. We continue to share these findings with the community in an open and timely manner.

 

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point that out for the honourable member.

 

The next one I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, is from the Argyle MLA, Chris d'Entremont. This is a tweet and I'm not into that technology but I'm going to quote . . .

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, Mr. Minister, I don't believe you can refer to a current sitting member by name. That's the current member for Argyle, which I think is the proper . . .

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Well, I asked directions the previous day, Mr. Chairman, and not to confuse things, but I got a different response. I respect your wisdom but I did get a different response, so I apologize for that and I know that we have a different chairman.

 

Mr. Chairman, the MLA for Argyle, a former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, on Twitter said: Thank you to Cooke Aquaculture for a great Christmas gathering - a great supporter of rural economic candour in Nova Scotia. That's from the MLA for Argyle.

 

Mr. Chairman, not to leave out the member for Digby-Annapolis, this is a press release dated April 24, 2008. The Digby-Annapolis MLA said, "Southwestern Nova Scotia has to greatly expand its fish-farming operations . . ." says the Liberal Fisheries Critic ". . . who has just returned from a tour of several aquaculture operations in Chile. The Digby-Annapolis MLA is indignant that the South American country is selling Canada a hundred thousand tonnes annually of salmon, rainbow trout and Arctic char . . . 'It's a Third World country feeding us here in Canada . . . and they're using our technology!'"

 

The MLA ". . . was on a week-long fact-finding trip organized by fisheries ministers in the Atlantic Provinces as well as the federal Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn. He is still surprised at the size and scope of Chilean aquaculture, an industry that the country only began two decades ago. 'I knew it was big,' he said, but he was still unprepared to find that Chile is so successful it is talking about doubling production over the next 15 years. Already 25 per cent of the country's gross national product comes from fish. 'They've got industrial parks as big as Burnside just for fish businesses. They had one plant with over 400 people to a shift, 16 hours a day, six days a week.'" Anyway, it goes on, and those are quotes from the Digby-Annapolis MLA.

 

Some of my research points out that back in October 30, 1995, there was a former Minister of - right now that minister is the mayor of Queens County, so I'll leave that to your imagination; I hope you connect the dots on that one:

 

"Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:

 

Whereas the former Progressive Conservative Government announced in December 1992, a $35 million plan that would accelerate aquaculture tenfold over the following five years; and . . .

 

Whereas the Premier and his Ministers of Fisheries and Economic Renewal recently announced a greatly scaled-down initiative offering less than one-third the amount offered by the PC Government for aquaculture;

 

Therefore be it resolved that the Premier and his government explain to Nova Scotians in general and aquaculturists in particular why the government is not prepared to support aquaculture to the same level as that offered by the former Progressive Conservative Government."

 

That is by the mayor of Queens County.

 

MR. MACLEOD: It would have been nice if you had someone from Cape Breton because that's what the question was about, so if we could get back from Chile and the South Shore and away from Digby and try to get right back to Cape Breton Island and let's talk about St. Ann's Bay and let's talk about mussels. (Interruptions)

 

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The purpose of these estimates is to discuss different issues that the minister is responsible for. The minister was given a direct question regarding an issue, regarding mussel licences in St. Ann's Bay. We've been on a trip to Chile, we visited Digby-Annapolis, and he made sure the province all knew that the former Tory Ministers of Fisheries did a great job. He talked about them; I'd just like him to talk about mussels, because before you know it we'll be out of time and we still won't know what's going on.

 

So if we could just get back and talk about mussels, Mr. Chairman, that's what it's supposed to be about.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. MacLeod, as you know, in this committee there is no real limit on the length of the question and there is not a limit on the length of the answer as long as the minister is answering the question, and how the minister answers that question is really up to him or her. I would say that it isn't really a point of order; the minister is answering the question in his own fashion.

 

MR. MACLEOD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, you have the floor.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your patience. I'm working my way through these important topics. I know it's important to hear from all Nova Scotians and that's what I intend to try to address here.

 

Mr. Chairman, this particular note I have in front of me says, "Nova Scotia to host Atlantic Fisheries Ministers." This is from February 23, 2006, the former Minister of Fisheries, MLA for Argyle. "Fisheries ministers from New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island will be in Halifax on Monday, May 30, for a meeting hosted by . . ." the Nova Scotia Fisheries Minister. "Discussion will focus on the current challenges facing the aquaculture industry in the region. The salmon farming industry is a major contributor to the economy in Atlantic Canada. It generates close to $300 million in annual sales and provides employment for more than 4,000 people throughout Atlantic Canada. However, the industry has faced a number of significant challenges in recent years. These challenges mirror those faced by the agriculture industry including extreme weather events, disease, and confusing information regarding food safety issues."

 

The MLA for Argyle said, "The salmon farming industry is an important employer in rural Atlantic Canadian communities, with jobs extending beyond the farm and hatchery operations to the supply and service sectors. This includes cage, net and boat manufacturing, processing and feed plants, transportation companies, divers, accountants, veterinarians, and the research community."

 

Just bear with me, Mr. Chairman, we're working through our notes here. Again, I won't go into great detail but this is a quick quote from May 30, 2005, "Fisheries and aquaculture ministers and senior officials from six provincial and territorial governments met in Halifax today, May 30^th. They discussed the pending economic and social crises facing communities that depend upon the salmon aquaculture industry in Atlantic Canada and the actions required to keep it sustainable." The former Minister of Fisheries, the member for Argyle, who hosted the meeting said, "It's obvious the salmon farming industry in the Atlantic region, particularly in the Bay of Fundy, is in crisis . . . Immediate financial assistance is needed to prevent the collapse of the salmon aquaculture industry."

 

I've got one more, Mr. Chairman, I'm working my way through it and I appreciate your patience. This is basically a news article from a special feature in the Nova Scotia Business Journal. It's dated April 2012, so we're moving ahead. "Nova Scotia on cusp of aquaculture boom" - I have just one paragraph, ". . . the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council (APEC) notes that aquaculture is the fastest growing source of food production on earth and that Atlantic Canada is riding the wave of growth. There is tremendous growth potential in Nova Scotia."

 

Mr. Chairman, at this time I'll turn it back to the member opposite who asked about aquaculture and I welcome any time I have an opportunity to speak about aquaculture. Thank you.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, minister. I know you began your answer by saying that you were going to table the documents that you referred to; I'd like you to table them as soon as you can.

 

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Chairman, I just want to confirm that in your ruling you said there was no length of time for the questions and/or the answers, am I correct?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, Mr. MacLeod, I think the general rule is that as long as the questions and the answers are relevant to the proceedings, there really isn't any way for the Chair to intervene, so if the minister appears to be on track to answering the question, then it's hard for the Chair to rule otherwise.

 

Certainly the questions have to be relevant, as well, to the estimates that are being considered.

 

MR. MACLEOD: And I could ask you, Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: You started at 6:17 p.m. and it is now 6:35 p.m., so you have until 7:17 p.m.

 

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Minister, it was very interesting, your educational tour on aquaculture; unfortunately, you never came close to answering the question. The question was about a mussel lease that was given to a group of Cape Breton fishermen and a Prince Edward Island company to farm mussels in St. Ann's Bay. At the time that was issued, there were a number of questions surrounded by the community and there was a group called the Stewards of St. Ann's Harbour who had some concerns about what's going on. Over the course of the last nine years - we're almost at the 10-year mark - where there's supposed to be a renewal for this lease, there have been some issues that have taken place.

 

One of the things that had been promised by the company from Prince Edward Island was that they would have a production facility built. That hasn't happened. There are other issues that were to take place - there were supposed to be a number of people employed in St. Ann's Bay, and that still hasn't happened either.

 

So when the renewal is coming up, there's a renewal process going through and you're going to be part of that renewal and people are going to be coming to you. There are those from the area that believe there has been a move towards not having an environmental assessment and that, I'm sure, is not of any interest to the minister because I think we all need to have the environmental assessment. Nobody wants to short-circuit the system, we all want to make sure that the system, as it goes forward, is a system that people can hold their head up and be proud about, and I know that the Nova Scotia proponents for St. Ann's Bay want to see the environmental assessment go forward as do the people from Stewards of St. Ann's Harbour. You'll be contacted to look at that.

 

As I recall, and I stand to be corrected, one of the riders that was in the original lease was indeed there were certain commitments that had to be made, and if those commitments weren't made the Province of Nova Scotia had the hammer to take that lease away from those individuals and put it in some other area. I guess the concern now is we have a number of Nova Scotia businessmen, fishermen, and part of this whole process, they're looking to make sure that this process continues.

 

There seems to be, from what I understand - and, again, your department may have more information than I do and I'm sure that after just coming back from Chile you wouldn't mind sharing that. I think it's important that when the lease renewal comes up that the Province of Nova Scotia, through your department, makes sure the best interests of Nova Scotians are at the top of the pile. Certainly if we have Nova Scotia fishermen who are part of that, they are the ones that should be looked at.

 

When we're talking about the leases, we need to be sure that if we are on the edge - as we have heard you say and quote so many different members of this House of Assembly - I would hope that when we move forward in any aquaculture project, that we're putting the best foot forward for the Province of Nova Scotia and the people of Nova Scotia, and that we take into consideration the concerns of the people of Nova Scotia who live in the different communities where this type of industry may have an impact.

 

Now, again, as I understand it, we're very close to where this renewal application is in the works. I'm sure your department is working through it and I'm hopeful that you are looking at it because I am very concerned about the fact that we never got the promised jobs that we were going to get out of this particular lease for the communities and for the area. You, Mr. Minister, like me, represent rural areas and know what it's like - I mean 10 jobs in a rural constituency, and I look across at my fellow members there and they would understand as well, are as important as 100 jobs in some of the other constituencies. We need to keep that in focus.

 

Then we have a number of aquaculture projects that are going on now that we hear a lot about. One that has created a lot of concerns is the open-pen salmon fishery. We have seen and heard some issues and challenges right in your own community, and we hear from people from different areas around the Eastern Shore and other areas. When you talked about the former Minister of Fisheries from Argyle, he talked about how the salmon industry had created some challenges in the Bay of Fundy, and the people there were quite concerned.

 

I've had the opportunity to meet with a number of groups that were involved in trying to help clean up the Bay of Fundy and get salmon growing back into the different streams there. Then we're on the cusp of moving forward and you talked a great deal about Chile, but we hear there have been some significant problems in Chile with aquaculture and open-pen farming.

 

All of these things are reasons why I think that you as a minister and myself, and my colleague from the Liberal Party as a critic, we have to be very aware of what's going on and we have to be sure that as we move forward, in what can be a very vital part of the economy for the Province of Nova Scotia, that we don't just rush in but that we make sure we make the right decisions, based on the right reasons, and work with the right people to make it happen.

 

With all of those things as a consideration we need to look at the other opportunities that are out there. Whether that's raising closed-pen salmon, similar to Arctic char that's being raised in Truro - and I'm sure the minister has been there and had an opportunity to look at that whole system and what they're doing there. It's incredible the amount of return they get on their water alone, the amount of growth that they can get in a year. All of these things are the kinds of things that put us on the cusp of making sure that this is an industry that is really viable for the Province of Nova Scotia.

 

So when I ask a simple question like are we talking about the renewal of the leases in St. Ann's Bay, what stage are we at, and if indeed we are considering looking at promoting Nova Scotians over outside interests, I am really only looking for a very short and simple answer because I truly believe that you're concerned - and I could be wrong and you'll correct me, I know, if I am - but I think your concern here is to make sure that Nova Scotia is at forefront of this industry, and hopefully we're employing Nova Scotians rather than people from outside the Province of Nova Scotia who may not have the best interests of our resources at heart.

 

When I ask you about the renewal of the releases in the Bay of St. Ann's, I'm not trying to be funny, I'm not trying to open a kettle of worms - I probably will eventually because that's what we do in this racket - but it is a very serious issue in the Bay of St. Ann's, for the people of Englishtown and the Stewards of St. Ann's Harbour. It's a really serious issue about where the leases are now, where they are going, and are we going to be at the mercy of some outside company, or indeed, are we going to be looking at dealing and working with Nova Scotians who have the best interests of Nova Scotia at heart? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Thank you very much to the member opposite; he certainly raised an important topic. I can tell you with this particular application, my understanding is this has been leased there for 10 years and it's going through a review, which is normal at this time. This is something that I am paying attention to and I can assure you that when the member opposite talks about the best interests of rural Nova Scotians and creating jobs in rural areas, it's something that, yes, I appreciate that statement and I believe that aquaculture across Nova Scotia is hovering around 800 - probably just lower than 800 - and to me those are full-time, year-round jobs and, again, it's something that I really appreciate knowing that we want to make sure we have something sustainable done in a very environmentally friendly way.

 

Also in your comments you talked about me giving you somewhat of a road tour about the different industries - we talked about going to Chile. My colleague, the member for Digby-Annapolis - and I quoted him talking about the Chilean industry there. I also can tell the member opposite that certainly Chile had some problems but they are dealing with them and they are recovering, so it's interesting.

 

I just want to point out to the member opposite, I think it's a good time to understand what all Nova Scotians are saying about aquaculture and, again, I think we need to take the time to understand this industry and to know that it can be done in partnership with traditional fisheries. I visited the area that you're talking about, I'm familiar with that area and the Englishtown ferry that goes across there - I believe I have the right location - it's a very good backdrop and a beautiful location to grow mussels. I had the opportunity to go out on some of the harvester boats and see that operation first-hand.

 

I point out that in my previous life I actually did that for a number of years, so I think I have a good understanding of the appreciation of this industry and the jobs that it creates in rural Nova Scotia, but I also understand there's a process in place and I believe in our staff that goes through those reviews. Again, as I pointed out in my earlier comments, we have an aquaculture strategy that will be coming forward in a short period of time but they will address some of the issues regarding aquaculture and I look forward to that, improving on an industry that can have a beneficial factor to rural Nova Scotia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the member opposite for the question.

 

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Chairman, I'm pretty sure that members of the House of Assembly here in Nova Scotia agree that there's a future here for aquaculture, but I'm also reasonably sure that people want it to be done in such a way that we don't have some of the issues and challenges that we've seen in some other areas. We want to be sure that indeed, aquaculture and fisheries can work together hand in hand and that there is some forward movement.

 

As I said, Mr. Minister, what I am concerned about with this lease that we talked about in the Bay of St. Ann's, there was the promise of processing jobs. My understanding - and, again, I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong - some of the issues in your own community, there were some promises of processing jobs there and some quite large numbers were talked about. With the background that you have as a fisherman, I'm just concerned that we're hearing all these promises about large numbers of jobs and they're not being delivered on - the Bay of St. Ann's being the first one. I'm just wondering what's going on in your own area. I've heard numbers as high as 350 jobs in processing. I don't know if that's correct and I know you'll set the record straight.

 

I think if that's correct, even if it's 200 jobs, the volume of production that would have to be done to have that kind of facility operate to process that, I'm just wondering, is that a realistic figure? Or are people throwing numbers out there, saying that we want to do this and we're going to do this for Nova Scotia, and then not delivering on the jobs?

 

Part of the reason we're looking at aquaculture is to provide jobs for the people of the Province of Nova Scotia, so I get concerned when I hear these big numbers about processing plants and then the plants don't even appear, but even when they mention the numbers, the numbers seem to be - and again, I certainly don't have the background that you and your department do, but the numbers seem exaggerated to me when I look at some of the fish plants that I have in my own communities that are struggling to keep their doors open, when you go through a cross-section of the different seasons and species that they're processing.

 

So yes, I think that aquaculture in the Province of Nova Scotia has a very large role to play, but I also believe that as a government, regardless of which government it happens to be, we have a huge responsibility to make sure that we're not putting our natural resource in jeopardy, that we are not creating false hopes in rural communities, and that we're not going to jeopardize a long-standing industry, as the fishery is, in the hopes of rushing into a new industry. I think if we're going to do it, we have to be very cautious of how we do it and it's a lot easier to crawl before you walk and walk before you run, rather than run in and get it wrong because if you get it wrong - if we get it wrong, I shouldn't say "you" - if we, as the Province of Nova Scotia get it wrong, we will pay that price in the markets and it could have an effect on our traditional fisheries. I don't think that's what anybody wants here.

 

I'm really concerned about these promises of jobs. I've looked at the numbers and there has been a fair amount of money put into aquaculture, and that's not a bad thing, but we want to be sure that we're investing it in the right way. When I can live the experience of what has happened in the Bay of St. Ann's, with the company from outside the province and the promises made and the jobs not delivered, that bothers me a lot. I'm just wondering where the minister's head is on all that.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, I know that this particular St. Ann's lease, the member opposite has addressed it a number of times, and I appreciate your understanding of this issue. I can't speak about what previous governments have determined in this lease, but I can tell you that our staff is reviewing this after a 10-year lease - it has been there for a number of years. We'll definitely be looking at it in the best interests of all Nova Scotians, as we do when we go through a lease application.

 

One of the comments that I picked up on, you talked about not rushing into this particular industry and I can tell you it does not appear as if we're rushing into this industry. If you look at the world production, you'll see that aquaculture has just surpassed the wild fin fishery and, to me, that's a statistic that one needs to pay attention to. In fact, I know that federal DFO has also announced that Canada's fresh fin fishery has been surpassed by the aquaculture products.

 

So aquaculture, I believe, is here and it's probably in its early stages in Nova Scotia. I also understand that aquaculture has been around for thousands of years so it's not a new industry. It may be relatively new for Nova Scotia, but I'm confident - I repeat, confident - that as we move with our aquaculture strategy, we'll be addressing the concerns of Nova Scotians and the fishing industry. I can assure you that the pledge that I took to represent Nova Scotians and to do our job is that we're going to have protection that will protect the traditional fisheries.

 

Just in my past experience of being minister for almost three years now, in the approvals that I had set out, there are a number of conditions in there, Mr. Chairman, and it goes into great details of where we take this job very seriously and if there was ever any non-compliance with the conditions, the particular licence or lease would be jeopardized. To me, that's a clear message: we will be monitoring and making sure that nobody will be using illegal substance or vaccines, or any of that type, and I also understand and appreciate the traditional fisheries.

 

When I look out on a water column that many people may go to for a casual Sunday afternoon, I see a very active community, whether it's in Shelburne County or the Pubnicos - and the Pubnicos in particular. When I've had the privilege to meet with a class from Dalhousie University, the marine science class that actually visited my community, one thing I've asked them to do when we talk about aquaculture - and these are fresh, developing minds, international students from all over the world, I go into their classroom at Dalhousie, and with all due respect to the professor, I very politely say that you may not learn everything about fisheries in this classroom, you need to go out into the real world. For the last three years that I've been minister, there has been an annual bus tour to southwest Nova Scotia.

 

I asked them to come to an area that I'm very familiar with and talk at great length about the opening of the lobster season. Why bring them up the day before the opening of lobster season, which is the last Monday in November? It's because I want them to observe the traditional industry and all that's taking place on that water column. I ask them what they see - the approach I have is somewhere near the Yarmouth-Shelburne County line - when they look out at that water and they say, well, it's a beautiful sunset or it's a beautiful Fall day; yes, we see windmills working in the background and they're creating renewable energy; and there are some boats tied to the wharf and it's a beautiful marine scene. That's basically a summary of what these international students see.

 

I say, well, I would just like to include what I see as the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and as a person who grew up somewhere close to that community. When I look out at that Yarmouth-Shelburne County line, I visualize a 50-mile to 60-mile radius around that particular point and I see the economic engine of Canada - yes, I said Canada - and the economic value that is generated by the commercial fisheries and aquaculture, the majority of the money comes from that 60-mile radius. That would include somewhere from Digby to the Shelburne area, somewhere in that area, that's what I see.

 

I see aquaculture industries surviving with the traditional fisheries, I see halibut hatcheries surviving, I see moss growing out, Acadian Seaplants growing aquaculture, I see Atlantic salmon growing in Shelburne Harbour, I see trout growing off of Argyle, and I see the Pubnicos, which have the strongest inshore fleet that ties up between the two wharves in East Pubnico and West Pubnico, all in partnership with aquaculture.

 

When I look immediately out there in direct line where the windmills are, I see a site where they have mackerel traps; on an annual basis the mackerel traps are there and they'll be going out somewhere between May 8^th or May 10^th, if my timing is right. They have the migration patterns of those mackerel coming up and they will have an annual harvest. I also see the harvest of Irish moss and the harvest of rockweed, and there are a number of people - what I'm trying to point out - that use that water column. I can go on in great detail.

 

In Digby we have one of the strongest clam harvesting industries there is in Atlantic Canada. All this money, all these different species that I'm talking about are generated in that 60-mile circle that I described. When the young mind of that youthful student looks out the window and sees something that may not be as much as what I'm talking about here, I see all this coexisting with the traditional fisheries, the aquaculture sites I mentioned. We have Irish moss, we have halibut, we have trout in the Argyles, and we have Atlantic salmon. We have one of the strongest wild fishery landings in Atlantic Canada. That's what I see, and this is all coexisting at one time.

 

When you ask that question to the youth, you can see how they start to understand how important this economic engine is for the Atlantic Provinces. That's what I see when I look out the window. To me there are great opportunities when it comes to aquaculture and making sure we protect the wild fishery. That's why I'm looking forward to our aquaculture strategy and I'm confident we will have the protection in there and we'll be doing the right thing for all Nova Scotians.

 

MR. MACLEOD: I'm wondering if there's a Coles Notes version, like a one-page or outline of the procedure to acquire an open-pen licence for aquaculture salmon - just something to give a person an idea of the depth of water, the amount of . . .

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: To the member opposite, we can get you that information. I think there's a one-page information sheet, but I want to tell you there's a very strenuous process when you apply for an application dealing with aquaculture. We have a number of federal colleagues to go through. There's a process where our federal scientists at DFO have to review and scrutinize the application, there's the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and my understanding is there is Environment Canada. So a number of our federal colleagues review the process, and I'm not the greatest scholar in the world, but to me I don't know any other process that has had the thorough application process as aquaculture. It is very well reviewed and I can tell you that it's thorough, and I thank the member for the question.

 

MR. MACLEOD: One of the important parts of this, I would imagine, is making sure the communities that are going to be directly impacted have an opportunity to have their voices heard. I'm wondering about the process for allowing a community to have its voice heard, what indeed that is. Is there one meeting? Is there a series of meetings? At the meeting what kind of information has to be supplied? Is there an opportunity for questions and answers? Is it like our own sessions here; are the answers allowed to go on forever and are the questions allowed to go on forever - like I am?

 

Is there a process that guarantees that a community that is going to be directly impacted by aquaculture, whatever type it happens to be, is there a process where that community has input? I guess what I would ask by that is currently we're doing some work on a mine in Cape Breton and there's some impact it's having on fisheries. I think we're into the fourth meeting of hearing from the community, as to what their concerns are, and the company that's involved going away, finding the answers, and then coming back.

 

Does somebody who applies for an aquaculture licence have to do the same thing? Does the community have that opportunity of asking questions and expecting answers to be delivered in a public forum, so that they can then question them again?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, this is a question of interest to a number of Nova Scotians. The proponent certainly does have an open house and we, as the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, also conduct public hearings, particularly on salmon sites, so this is something I can tell you that there's a number of processes and steps that have to take place.

 

Again, I want to go back to my earlier comments that I don't know of any other application that I'm familiar with that is scrutinized at this great a level that has as many federal contributions involved in the application process and then it's evaluated by my provincial colleagues. So hopefully that answers the member's question.

 

MR. MACLEOD: I think I heard you say, Mr. Minister, that the proponent had to have an open house. Is there any requirement that there's more than one open house and is there an opportunity for people to ask questions and then expect responses back, before the process continues on?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: My knowledge is that the proponent does go back on certain occasions to answer any required information but there is something that, you know, we can work at or try to get all these particular questions addressed during the public hearing process. That is something that's advertised in the papers and people have an opportunity to observe that and make sure they can get their presentations submitted. All of those presentations are evaluated during the review process.

 

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Minister, I guess the question is, is there one public meeting - are there three public meetings, are there 12 public meetings? Is there a standard of how an individual community can respond to a proponent when they have put forward their application for a licence? That assessment process that you have just told us is one of the best around, does that process have - how many opportunities does the community have to put their input into that, between the proponent and your department? How many opportunities does the community have?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, by law we do not have to have public hearings but usually for fin fish we always try to accommodate and address the public's concerns, if there are any. It's just a normal process that has evolved. To me it's an opportunity for the public to talk to a proponent when they have their particular house and we also make sure that we conduct a public hearing when there's any application or a new application that comes forward. Thank you.

 

MR. MACLEOD: I want to be clear, by law there is no need to have a public consultation, is that what I heard?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The public hearing, by law, we don't have to have it, but something that we usually do is to make sure that we address the needs of the community. The proponent usually has an open house when it's a particular fin fish application.

 

MR. MACLEOD: I find myself in an awkward position now because a few moments ago you told us about having the best process available for aquaculture in the Province of Nova Scotia. You said it was the best one that you've ever seen - in your own words - in your limited knowledge and yet our job, as members of this House of Assembly, is to make sure that the people of the Province of Nova Scotia's voices are heard.

 

We have an industry that will have the opportunity to have quite an impact, and we've seen the impact in many different communities, yet you're telling me that the process we're using in the Province of Nova Scotia does not allow its residents to talk to its government about its natural resources in its own community. That, sir, is not an open process. That is not a process where the community is fully engaged. That is more like telling a community what is good for them, rather than working with them towards a good solution and a good type of industry.

 

I'm very disturbed to hear that you, as minister, are happy with a process that doesn't talk to the very people that we are supposed to represent.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I just want to clarify a few of the statements the honourable member raised here. First of all, we're dealing with the process that was put in place by the previous governments: the PCs and the Liberals. We're dealing with that, and I assure you that I take all the considerations of residents of Nova Scotia and we do a thorough job. We make sure that any time there are concerns that our staff are more than willing to meet with members of the community.

 

Again, this process was established by previous governments. I went into great length, talking earlier about quotes from previous ministers in Nova Scotia, a number of them critics from both Parties. This process was put in place by previous governments. I can assure you that we'll do our best, under the guidelines as set down by the previous two Parties.

 

I talked in my opening comments about a young boy having a fleet, a vision. I also talked about a government having a vision. We do have a vision and it is called the aquaculture strategy. That vision, Mr. Chairman, is dealing with anything that we can improve on and is setting down conditions and strategies in a vision for the future and how this can be done in a sustainable and economic way of benefiting rural Nova Scotia, creating good jobs in Nova Scotia, creating year-round jobs.

 

We're dealing with a process that was put in place, to be very blunt and frank and open here, by previous governments. Do we want to improve on that? Sure we do.

 

I look forward to the opportunity that we can present to the public a strategy dealing with this issue that the member opposite raises. So any time you have a system that the member opposite may have some issues or concerns with, I think one has to remember where that particular legislation and where those particular guidelines have come from. I assure you that the oath I took of protecting Nova Scotia and making sure we do the best that we can for all Nova Scotians, doing the right thing, is something that I take very seriously and this government takes very seriously.

 

Yes, we want to have good jobs in rural Nova Scotia, particularly the aquaculture industry. Again, I look forward to an aquaculture strategy that will address the concerns and I have the greatest confidence as we move forward that if at any time we can improve on the present government's errors, then I look forward to that time.

 

MR. MACLEOD: It's very refreshing to hear that he's willing to work towards improving the present government's errors. The issue here is you're bouncing back to "This is what was there, this is what was there." You just told us that you have been minister for three years. You told us this is a priority for you. You told us that you were "mister mussel" and that you had farmed aquaculture, so you understood the industry. Now you're saying, well, that's what we were given so we're going to have to move forward with bad legislation. If you as minister don't want to talk to the people involved in the Province of Nova Scotia, I feel sorry for you. I think that's bad and I think it's even worse that your only defence is, well, that's what was there and that's what we did in the past.

 

What we're talking about here is what the future of this industry is and how we are going to make this industry more compatible and better for all the people in the Province of Nova Scotia. You've decided tonight that you want to take us down memory lane about all the things that were said by past governments; then you want to say that what's going on here is because of past governments. You have been the minister for three years. The issue of salmon farming has been around a lot longer than that and that goes back to your own quotes about other members of this House and what they have said, so if there is an issue, I don't understand why it is you haven't found it and fixed it before now. Yes, you have a process coming forward, but I'd be willing to bet that in that new process that you have coming forward, the opportunity for the public to have consultation and more than just passing in the night, it's not in the law, that's not an excuse for doing the right thing.

 

I'm a little disappointed that you would go down that road. We were trying to talk about what would be a valuable way of doing it. You were saying that we weren't rushing into it here in Nova Scotia and I think there is a lot of value in what needs to be done. Certainly in rural Nova Scotia, in the areas that you and I and some of my colleagues across the table here represent - like my colleague to my left - this is a very important issue. For you to say that we're not going to talk to the people and it's because that's the way it was done in the past, what kind of government is that? What kind of rationale is that?

 

You have really strong people in your department. You have very capable people in your department who have, I'm sure, identified some issues. I want you to know that we have faith in the people who work in the department, but for you to sit there and say, well, that's the way it has been done and that's good enough to move forward, that's not acceptable. At least it's not acceptable to me as the member for Cape Breton West.

 

I think you have to look at yourself and get a handle on where we are, because this is not right. I've got a letter right here and I can't tell you how many groups have signed it with their concerns about open-pen farming. I know that you've gotten boxes and boxes of letters from people from different parts of the province who have concerns. What we've been trying to do is figure out what the best way is to move forward. Part of that, in my opinion, I guess, is that you would sit down and talk to the people that you represent, talk to the people who are going to be directly impacted by what takes place, talk to the people who have their communities impacted. Just because you would like to say, well, gee whiz, that's the way it was before - that's not acceptable to me and I don't think it would be acceptable to you if you were sitting where I am.

 

I think there's a responsibility to do this right and, again, I don't think we should go rushing into it. I think we need to take our time and get it right, but more importantly, we have to be sure that the communities have an ability to speak to their government - a government that may, indeed, be investing in this. What are they investing? They're investing taxpayers' dollars and yet you're saying that they don't need to have any input. I don't really believe that's what you wanted to portray and I hope I'm right in that because that's just not the way it should be.

 

You have made your living from the fisheries for a considerable amount of time, and from what I hear, you were a pretty good fisherman and your mussels weren't that bad either. But for where we are now, we need to walk before we run and I'm very concerned that's not where the minister is at. For what it's worth, I firmly believe that we as a government need to make sure that the public has a chance to have input. I think that the stakeholder, the proponent, the onus has to be on them to make sure that they answer the communities' questions, as well, and the government has the hammer to do that. We have the ability to do that.

 

We've seen you and your colleagues change other legislation here that you didn't think was satisfactory so you can move forward, so I can't understand why you wouldn't consider the same thing at this time. It's kind of concerning, I guess, and I'm a little worried as to where we might be going with that.

 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I see my time is up so I'll pass it on to my colleague in the Liberal Party.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: There has been a request for a five-minute break. Is it agreed?

 

It is agreed - a five-minute break. Thank you.

 

[7:16 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

 

[7:24 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We will resume the Subcommittee on Supply. The Liberal caucus has one hour.

 

The honourable member for Richmond.

 

HON. MICHEL SAMSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess to start off with a bit of levity, I noticed when the minister kept saying everything he could see in Shelburne, he was saying I see this and I see that, I was almost expecting him to break out and say "I see trees of green, red roses too. I see them bloom, for me and you. And I think to myself, what a wonderful world." Maybe Shelburne is the wonderful world that they were referring to in the song but that's immediately what came to mind as he was describing all the wonderful things he could see.

 

What I see in front of me are estimates and questions regarding what the specific numbers actually mean. I did get clarification during the break regarding the grants and contributions and the fact that this is not something we're going to see moving forward.

 

I just wanted to ask, under Product Development, Programs and Services, Product Development appears to be new funding that is in the department, $909,000. I see an "(A)" next to it so I'm assuming that's coming over from Agriculture, and it looks like it's bringing over seven staff as well. Is that correct?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Yes, my understanding is that seven members were brought over from Agriculture.

 

MR. SAMSON: So when it comes to product development, are they specifically only looking at seafood and aquaculture product development or are they, as well, going to be still doing some development work for the Department of Agriculture?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: They will be looking at all departments, all different food sectors in relation - agriculture and aquaculture and fisheries.

 

MR. SAMSON: Here's where I'm a bit confused. You sent the Fisheries and Aquaculture Loan Board over to Agriculture, and now you're bringing staff from Agriculture over to Fisheries and Aquaculture for product development. My understanding is that the marketing arm you had in Fisheries and Aquaculture has been sent over to Economic and Rural Development and Tourism from Fisheries and Aquaculture, Agriculture, and Energy - I believe they are all now housed under Economic and Rural Development and Tourism.

 

I'm just curious that those who are now under your department for product development, were they previously doing product development work for Fisheries and Aquaculture prior to being moved over to your budget?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: To the member opposite, the answer is yes.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, so I'm going to ask the question, why have they been moved under your department and not kept at the Department of Agriculture? It just seems that budget items are being moved from one department to the next but there's really no change in what is taking place and their everyday operation is just shuffling monies around from one department to another. Is there a better explanation than that?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, the main focus is that a lot of the activity or the main focus is going to be on seafood, the value added in that particular sector. That's why the move at this time.

 

MR. SAMSON: So they'll be focused more on seafood than they would have been previously, is what you're saying?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: That's correct. The main issue was the value added on fisheries and aquaculture.

 

MR. SAMSON: I'm wondering if you could possibly give us some indication what specific products they might be doing value added. For example, I know that Clearwater just announced a new product line of bacon-wrapped scallops. Did you have any involvement in that or was that simply something done by that company internally, or can you indicate the specific types of products that are being worked on for further development?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Some of the product topics that are especially to do with added value would be crab and fin fish, but one of the issues that I mentioned earlier in some of my comments was lobster. Again, I took a lot of time to highlight the fact that our industry - and you'll remember that I talked about the pebble dropping into the ocean and the ripple effect extending across the industry. This is what we're talking about with processing and adding value. We're seeing more of this product processing in our communities across Atlantic Canada, and if you back up a number of years ago, most of our product was going to the live market. Lobster is one particular species that a lot of that is going to processing.

 

We talk about added value in the food chain, the customer is now particular, Mr. Chairman. The cruise ships, the cruise lines, are looking at the tail portions of the lobster. That is in high demand for that certain high, white-tablecloth end of sale, but it also points out that the other portion of the lobster - the claws, the remaining body cavities, and all that - is going to added value. So that's something that we want to see some of this money directed towards.

 

I can tell you it is money well spent and I believe it's on the right track. This is what this government is about: making the right decisions for the industries when it's most needed. Thank you for the question.

 

MR. SAMSON: Under Grants and Contributions, Page 134, my understanding is this is from the community trust funding. I'm wondering were harbour authorities made aware that they could make application to the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture for funding under this program?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: My understanding is all groups were made aware of these applications. That information was on our Web site and they were informed about this particular program.

 

MR. SAMSON: I'm wondering if you could provide that to me, correspondence that would show they were made aware of this. As I said earlier, I was certainly not aware that this was even an option for my harbour authorities which, like everywhere else, are now finding it quite a struggle to maintain their operations. But if you indicate that there's correspondence that went out to them to that effect, then we'll certainly look forward to receiving that.

 

I'm looking here at the Fishermen and Scientists Research Society. I think you made mention of them and all the work they do. I'm a bit surprised that they only received $43,000. Is there a specific funding agreement in place between the province and the Fishermen and Scientists Research Society?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The question you were asking, is that the science and research council that you're making reference to, just for clarification?

 

MR. SAMSON: No, I'm on Page 134, Grants and Contributions. It shows the Fishermen and Scientists Research Society receiving $43,000. My question was, is there a funding agreement in place, or is this a year-to-year decision that's made regarding that organization?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I appreciate the clarification on that. The information to do with the Fishermen and Scientists Research Society, that was a moulting project and those applications are based on a year-to-year request. I pointed out the importance of that money and I hope the member opposite appreciates the value of that work. We look forward to continuing to work on these issues with the Fishermen and Scientists Research Society.

 

MR. SAMSON: I see that the Guysborough County Inshore Fishermen's Association received $17,500. I'm wondering if you could advise what that funding was for.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: My understanding is that they were doing some lobster larvae sampling and dealing with the fishermen's group in that area regarding lobster larvae and the importance of that, to understand that particular question.

 

MR. SAMSON: I see that Innovative Fishery Products Inc. received $260,400. I'm wondering if you could advise what that funding was for.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: That particular funding was for a clam innovation and hatchery project.

 

MR. SAMSON: What does Innovative Fishery Products do?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The company the member opposite requested the information about is dealing with hard-shell clams and soft-shell clams.

 

MR. SAMSON: Who is Land Use Research Associates? I see they received $15,000 under Grants and Contributions, but if we go further under Other - I've never really understood what that category is - they received $140,000. So I'm curious, who is Land Use Research Associates?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: My understanding is that particular dollar value is related to the consultant firm that does a lot of work for our office. We can get you more information on the line that the member requested.

 

MR. SAMSON: Could you indicate specifically what type of work they do for your office?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: This is the consultation and hearing processes that we go through in a number of these so-called fin fish applications and aquaculture leases where there are a number of public consultations and setting up for meetings and doing that work that is always regarding applications dealing with aquaculture.

 

MR. SAMSON: That's a lot of money - $75,000, I believe you said earlier, for Lura Consulting - and now we're at $140,000 plus $15,000, so that's over $150,000 for this Land Use Research Associates. I'm just curious again, why are we not using staff from either your department or other departments to do this type of work, rather than costing taxpayers $150,000 for just this one company?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Again, it's always to have third-party consultation and to get the different viewpoints through consultation or consulting firms. It's something that is important when we're dealing with the public to make sure that they have confidence in the work that is required on these particular leases or applications.

 

MR. SAMSON: Is there a specific report that they then provide to you? Is that the concern of having a third party? What I understood earlier is that they were basically managing meetings and they were there to allow for public consultation, but I believe you indicated they didn't specifically have a document to show what we got the work for. Is that the same case here, they were simply mediating meetings and organizing meetings, or did they provide specific documentation to the department that you could provide us with to show why we paid $150,000?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: These particular consulting firms gather aquaculture seafood surveys and they conduct workshops to gather the information that is basically crucial, and doing evaluations in the best interests of the public when we're dealing with this particular topic.

 

MR. SAMSON: Did I hear you say that they worked on some sort of herring project?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I'm having a difficult - public hearing.

 

MR. SAMSON: Public hearing, okay. I was about to say, why are we dealing with herring, I always thought it was DFO, but anyway, I'm glad you cleared that up. Land Use Research Associates dealt with public hearings on aquaculture as well?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Yes, that is the main focus of a lot of this work that is being done by these consultants.

 

MR. SAMSON: Could you indicate which specific sites they were focusing on? Since you said that Lura Consulting was doing Shelburne and Eastern Shore, where was Land Use Research Associates doing work?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I answered that question earlier that this is some of the work that's being done on the applications, the new ones that are addressing the Shelburne area and also the Eastern Shore.

 

MR. SAMSON: So we now have two companies that are doing consulting work regarding applications in Shelburne and the Eastern Shore. Just to make it easier, are there any other consulting companies that are doing work for your department regarding aquaculture, or anything else for that matter?

MR. BELLIVEAU: For clarification, Mr. Chairman, it is one company that is dealing with these particular projects.

 

MR. SAMSON: All right, so help me out here. Is Land Use Research Associates the same company you were referring to earlier? I think you called it Lura - I believe that's what you thought was the name. Is that the acronym for this company here? (Interruption) All right, now we're getting somewhere. So it is the same company that we're talking about, not two different companies. Very good, that makes it a bit easier.

 

Who is William D. MacLean, and why did we pay him $18,968.16?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Can we have clarification, Mr. Chairman, what page are you referring to?

 

MR. SAMSON: I'm still on the same page - Page 134 of the Public Accounts, Supplementary Information.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: My understanding is that this is for an oyster project. Basically the money is to design or improve an oyster grow-out and actually lift the oyster containment spat out of the water - assisting oyster grow-outs in the Bras d'Or Lakes.

 

MR. SAMSON: So the payment to Mr. MacLean was for this work?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: That's correct - this was for the work done by Mr. MacLean, this project that I described.

 

MR. SAMSON: Is he with a company? Has he got his own outfit? How is it that this gentleman came to carry out this work for the department?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: To the member opposite, this particular individual is an oyster farmer so I think this would be beneficial to his interests.

 

MR. SAMSON: I guess it just stands out because of the fact he is not affiliated with a company, or it doesn't show up as a company, which makes you wonder and begs the question. I just want to go back to clarify again, I think we've got it that Lura, Land Use Research Associates - in the supplementary detail we now see they were paid $150,000, not during this past fiscal year but before.

 

In your comments earlier, I think when we were working through the estimates of Aquaculture, when you indicated what the increased costs were, you said it was because of a $75,000 payment to Lura. Am I to understand that in the previous fiscal year we paid this company $150,000, and in this fiscal year you plan on paying them another $75,000?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: My understanding is that this was over the past fiscal year. The member is asking for detailed information, so we'll definitely make an effort to get that. My understanding is over the previous year we were over that required amount by $75,000, but we'll get the detailed information to the honourable member.

 

MR. SAMSON: Yes, if you could provide me with what this company has been paid since 2009, for example, I'd certainly appreciate that information as we're getting into some pretty significant sums of money, to say the least.

 

I see here on Page 135 of the Supplementary Information that Rainbow Net & Rigging Ltd. was given $280,000. I'm wondering what the money was for.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The member opposite identifies this particular project - my understanding is it's to clean aquaculture sites, the netting and stuff, and to contain or have very little runoff, particularly on aquaculture sites. This is something that's really a step or a leap forward in the technology dealing with aquaculture, the importance of anti-fouling and how we can improve upon maintaining aquaculture sites in Nova Scotia.

 

MR. SAMSON: I'm wondering if you could explain, also on Page 135, a payment to the Town of Clark's Harbour for $18,579.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, I think we have an issue trying to find Page 135, but in the interest of time, if the member wants to, we can return to that question. I'm not trying to avoid it but we're trying to make sure we find that page. I don't want him to lose his time allotted.

 

MR. SAMSON: It's on the same page as the Rainbow Net & Rigging, in the Supplementary Information. Anyway, we can go to another one and maybe we'll have better luck. A payment of $61,147 was made to Karen Westhaver-Stevens. I'm wondering if you could explain what that payment was for.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I apologize for not getting that information to you quicker. I can return to the question you asked for the amount regarding the Town of Clark's Harbour, the $18,579.11. The amount represents payments to herring workers in southwest Nova Scotia, the Administration division of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. I can tell you that was, I believe, a few months ago - not this last herring season but the previous one, so it's regarding herring workers in the South Shore region.

 

MR. SAMSON: And exactly what did the money go to do?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that this money was directed towards herring workers in the South Shore region - I guess tri-counties is a better way of describing that - who actually fell short of not being qualified for EI. This was something that under this particular program, we assisted in working with our municipal partners.

 

MR. SAMSON: So this money went directly to the herring workers to basically top up their stamps so that they could qualify for EI, is that correct?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: This was for retention - making sure that we keep the herring workers in that industry. I can assure you that this was well received by not only the herring workers, but also people who are involved in that industry - the fish processors, particularly the herring industry people who rely on the work of those hard-working individuals.

 

If my memory serves me correctly - again, as I pointed out earlier - the herring, two summers ago, it was all related to warm temperatures. I spoke to a number of fishermen, herring workers, people who actually seine the herring, and they never saw such a difference in the normal catching ability of herring. Usually when the Fall comes, or late August, the herring is - you can look at a calendar and tell exactly where they're going to be in the Bay of Fundy, but the herring didn't show up that year. For some reason - whether it has to do with climate change - the fishermen pointed out very clearly to me that the herring were not coming up at night. We all know that a lot of the herring fishery is done in the evening, and it's unfortunate, but that one particular season the herring were not there; they were not able to catch them.

 

There were great efforts made by the industry to make sure that these particular workers would get the required amount of stamps so they could work in that industry. The industry relies on these workers - not only the herring boat captains but also the fish processing plant. To make sure that these people are committed and stay in that industry, this is the reason why that particular $18,000 or so was allotted to our municipal partners: to retain them and make sure they would have and qualify for EI stamps. So to me it was money that was well appreciated; I can assure you the municipal partners complimented me many times over for introducing this particular idea or concept in making sure that these people were not forgotten. Hopefully that gives the member opposite some insight into that $18,000 cheque.

 

MR. SAMSON: How did the Town of Clark's Harbour administer this? If you were paying it to a plant or to an association, I could see, but how did a municipal unit manage to take funds and pay it out to herring workers without someone raising a red flag as to the process? I'm not sure how EI would have even allowed that to happen considering how strict their rules have become. How did the Town of Clark's Harbour take the $18,000 and distribute the money?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I want to be very clear, the individual herring workers work for this money. The municipality organized community work projects and these individuals work for this money. This was not given out. This was a work project that people actually went out and did their day's work, so they qualified for this particular program.

 

MR. SAMSON: So they worked for the Town of Clark's Harbour, not in a herring processing facility, to get this money. That's what I'm trying to get clear. The work they were doing was for the town, not in herring processing, to get this $18,000. Is that correct?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Yes, that is correct. Again, I want to point out the importance of retaining these people before the next season. This is exactly where the compliments were coming from - the industry. Naturally the municipal units also benefited from this, so it was very well received in our community.

 

MR. SAMSON: I wonder if you could advise if in just this past fiscal year, were any payments made to the Town of Clark's Harbour on a similar basis, to help herring workers maintain their EI and to retain them, as the minister indicated?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: To the member opposite, I thought I was clear on that. To me, this was a one-time offer and again I want to point out that the activity of the herring fishery in that particular season was not normal. Whether it was dealing with water temperatures - many of the senior fishermen suggested it had some impact from the warm temperatures that they were seeing in the ocean and that the herring would simply not surface when it came time to catch at night. So this was a one-time only and I can tell you that it has really benefited the herring workers in the tri-counties, especially the municipal units.

 

MR. SAMSON: Could you explain what the $6,058 payment made to the Town of Yarmouth was for? Was that for the same concept?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Yes, that's correct. The Town of Yarmouth is also a partner in the same project.

 

MR. SAMSON: Were there any other municipal units that received payments, as well, under this one-time program?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: If my memory serves me correct, and my staff is looking it up, my memory is that the Municipality of Barrington was included in that and also the Municipality of Clare. If I overlooked one, my staff will get that information to the member opposite.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, I see the Municipality of the District of Argyle, $28,000; the Municipality of the District of Barrington, $17,000; and the Municipality of the District of Yarmouth, $5,000. So those were all for that same program?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: That's correct and again, I want to emphasize that many of the municipal units in that partnership were very appreciative of that particular program. They felt a great need to make sure they would recognize the importance of having these people not suffer the consequences of what we call a "fluke" in the fishing industry when the fish didn't show up. It was a one-time deal and was very well received within the communities - not only by the fish plant workers but also the municipal units that actually appreciated these individuals.

 

I can tell you the industry, whether it's the herring captains or the people who supply the services to these particular fleets, was very appreciative of this particular project.

 

MR. SAMSON: I wonder if you could tell us the name of this program. Coming from a community that relies upon the fishery, I'm just curious, what would we apply under if one of our fisheries should happen to find itself in that type of situation? I'm assuming you have a program, guidelines, and specific rules around giving this type of money out.

 

I'm wondering if you could tell us the name of that program and maybe make us aware of it. Especially those who come from fishing communities, in case we're faced with that type of situation - whether it's lobster, crab, shrimp, or any of the other species we rely upon - that we would know specifically which program currently exists in the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, in order to receive that same sort of assistance for our municipalities, to be passed on to our fish plant workers.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I can tell you that there's no name for the particular project but if I do have a name come to my mind it's that the industry was in a crisis. I would suggest that when people are in that situation, regardless of whether you're in the minister's riding or you're in neighbouring Opposition ridings - which was three or four - that you do the right thing for people who are struggling.

 

People usually don't want a handout, they want a hand up, and that's what this government does in a situation like that. The municipal units requested that particular project and I can assure you that there were a number of them in Opposition ridings - not to be political here, but I know a crisis when I see it. I can go back and tell you at great length that speaking to experienced fishermen, this is something they didn't see before and to understand climate changes and how it can have an effect on a community, I think is probably a classic case file that we need to recognize, and this particular government does not turn away from people who need a hand up.

 

Again, I want to point out that this was very well received by our municipal governments. They were colleagues of mine, in my previous life as a municipal councillor, and I can also tell you that in the tri-counties, most of those seats are held by Opposition. It was very well received by municipal members in that area and the industry, the seiners, the herring seiners, the captains, understand that they knew they were going through a difficult climb and they wanted these individuals to be there the following year. So to me, that was well-spent money.

 

MR. SAMSON: I'm sure if my colleague, the member for Yarmouth was here, he'd wonder where that logic was for funding for the Yarmouth ferry but I'm sure he'll have the opportunity to raise that issue again, as I'm sure the workers from that ferry feel left behind.

 

I asked you earlier to explain the payment made to Karen Westhaver-Stevens of $61,000. I wonder if you could advise what that payment was for.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: My understanding is that this particular individual has a fin fish aquaculture site and this money was used to expand the present site that this individual presently has.

 

MR. SAMSON: And this site is located where? Where is the operation located?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Our staff will get the exact location, but it's my understanding it's a hatchery site on the South Shore of Nova Scotia. If I misspoke, we can get some detail with the actual address of Ms. Westhaver-Stevens.

 

MR. SAMSON: Still on Page 135 of the Supplementary Information, there's a payment of $92,000 to GeoNet Technologies Inc. I'm wondering what that payment is for.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: This amount represents a payment for consultant project managers, supporting and training of the database for the Aquaculture Division of the Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

 

MR. SAMSON: This is more consultants being paid by the department, and now GeoNet is doing consultations for $92,000. You're saying it's for some sort of database used internally in the department, is that correct?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: To the member opposite, my understanding of this particular consultant firm is this is regarding a road map for aquaculture. Again, I want to emphasize the importance of this road map that we have created. You lay out the detailed information about where the potential sites around Nova Scotia are; for instance, you can look at the gulf as we move from our New Brunswick-Nova Scotia border, and go around to Cape Breton to the causeway. That particular area, in my mind, is identified for shellfish. I think the information will back up my comments - that particular area that I just described is good for shellfish grow-out sites.

 

As we move up along the Eastern Shore towards Halifax, and up towards southwest Nova Scotia into the Digby area - and I want to stop there - that particular area is subject for grow-out sites for fin fish. I can show you some of the information I have that those are actually very good grow-out sites for fin fish. In fact, it's probably the best in the world. This information is very valuable to all entrepreneurs that want to have that expertise, knowledge, data, and background. Again, this is money that is well spent and when you have an industry that can be of benefit to rural Nova Scotia, this information is very valuable.

 

To understand the location where you can identify or put sites for aquaculture, whether you're dealing with fin fish or mussels, you need to know where the best locations are, what the site lines are, the Navigable Waters Protection Act - the problems dealing with current and all that. So this is a road map for the future and to have this information for the industry, I think, is a valuable contribution to the industry. This is something that we want to do. The previous government certainly had an opportunity to do this. Like we said, we have set out road maps, we are setting out a strategy of moving aquaculture forward, and we look forward to the future.

 

MR. SAMSON: Can we get a copy of the map?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: That information is available. By all means, I'd ask for him to review that. You can actually go on-line and see that map. It's quite remarkable. Hopefully I described it close enough and be accurate as the map, but it will show you basically what I described earlier - how this can be very beneficial to our growing aquaculture industry.

 

MR. SAMSON: Jim Jamieson was paid $6,655. I'm wondering if you could explain what that payment was for.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: That money was allotted to review the safety procedures around our inspectors. We want to make sure they are safe in the work field and that the appropriate equipment was being used by our staff.

 

MR. SAMSON: I apologize. I'm wondering if you could just quickly repeat that again - I missed that.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I understand that money was used to make sure that our staff was using the proper safety devices and equipment, and to make sure that our staff was safe in the workplace - the inspection staff.

 

MR. SAMSON: Mr. Jamieson is a former employee with Fisheries and Oceans Canada federally, is he not?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Yes, this individual is a retired DFO official. Jim Jamieson, I believe, is his name.

 

MR. SAMSON: Yes, and he has some sort of expertise in safety training for the fisheries?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Yes, Jim Jamieson spent years as an officer so he's very familiar with what is required and what is needed in the workplace and to make sure that our staff is out there in the field and being conducted in a very safe way.

 

MR. SAMSON: Did that work go out to tender?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The member opposite is asking detailed questions. It is my understanding that it did, but we'll review it and make sure we get the detailed information back to him. I just want to double-check on that for the member opposite, to review this particular estimate.

 

MR. SAMSON: I just hope someone is keeping track of all this. I hope it's not falling to the ADM, because hopefully he can understand his notes tomorrow. JB Jones Consulting was paid $26,867. I wonder if you could advise what that payment was for.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: That was consulting work done by Jim Jones and this was dealing with the FHOSA Act that I described earlier in my comments. This is something that really the industry actually asked for, and this work was very well received by our staff and by industry, I can assure you.

 

MR. SAMSON: And if staff could provide more details on what that work was and, as well, provide the tender documents that showed this work went out to tender as well.

 

Minister, are you familiar with Innovative Fishery and the work they carry out down on the South Shore?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I guess to answer your question, I am aware of them like I'm aware of a number of companies across Nova Scotia. I know that they are involved in soft-shell and hard-shell clams, and it's my understanding that they do some work with depuration. But to me, they are like some other average company across Nova Scotia - I guess that's my limited knowledge of them.

 

MR. SAMSON: Concerns have been raised with us that Innovative Fishery may be employing individuals to dig clams - I don't know if we call it digging or harvesting clams when they're onshore, but let's go with digging clams - that are not licensed clam diggers. I'm wondering if this concern has been brought to the minister's attention.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The clam harvesters, that is something that's regulated by our federal counterparts, the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. That is something that's not under our umbrella or our jurisdiction. It's the federal boys that regulate the clam industry and harvesting.

 

MR. SAMSON: I'm curious though, is it not your department that's responsible for some of the leases and the sites that are being used by Innovative Fishery, as part of their company?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The member opposite is bringing up an interesting question. We do have the jurisdictional authority over the leased sites but we do not have the authority over the harvesters. I know it's probably complex to understand but those are the regulations that we're presently under.

 

MR. SAMSON: Is the minister aware of concerns that Innovative Fishery may be using individuals that are not licensed clam harvesters as part of their operation? Has that concern been brought to his attention or is this the first that he's hearing of it, now that I'm raising it today?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Our staff is aware of this particular situation, but I want to emphasize that we cannot determine who companies employ in Nova Scotia. We're aware of this issue and again, your question regarding harvesters is under federal jurisdiction.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Member, there's 10 minutes remaining for the Liberal caucus.

 

MR. SAMSON: My understanding was that whenever a lease is approved, that as part of the attachments that come with it is a requirement to follow any rules set out by DFO or any other federal agency, that that is one of the conditions that are attached to these leases, based on the premise that all the agencies are working together and there's a requirement to respect each other's rules. So would there not be, with this lease, conditions attached from your department that say that any rules that apply to DFO would also apply to the management of this specific lease?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The particular company has to follow the rules set out by the lease agreement, but I want to point out that these particular harvesters that you're talking about are regulated by the federal government. Again, it's an issue that crosses different boundaries, but this particular harvesting of shellfish is controlled or regulated by our federal cousins.

 

MR. SAMSON: So in the lease agreement with Innovative Fishery there are no conditions that relate to having to abide by rules set out by DFO? It basically says, here's the agreement; whatever DFO says, that's a whole other issue and we have nothing to do with it. My understanding always was that with these sites that the language was such that any rules applying to Environment Canada, DFO, or any other agencies that are partners would have to be adhered to as well. Can the minister confirm today that there are no such conditions to this lease that requires the lease holder to respect rules set out by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Yes there is - they have to respect the rules in the lease. Again, I want to point out that DFO did not specify who the harvesters were. This is under the federal jurisdiction determining who is harvesting these clams on these particular lease sites. It crosses different boundaries and different jurisdictions so it's somewhat of a complex issue, but there are terms and conditions set out and we do our best to protect the public.

 

MR. SAMSON: You indicated that you met with Minister Keith Ashfield and that you raised concerns with him. I'm wondering if you raised the issue that has been brought to our attention about individuals who are not licensed as clam harvesters being employed by Innovative Fishery, for all intents and purposes, in the clam-harvesting industry without being licensed.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Just for clarification, the industry has not come to me directly. Our staff is working with our federal counterparts on this issue but I have not been approached personally, or my office, on this particular question that you're raising. But our staff is working with our federal counterparts.

 

MR. SAMSON: Is there any correspondence from your staff to the federal department on this issue that you could provide us with to indicate what actions have been taken by your department?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: My understanding is we do not have any correspondence on that but, again, we've been given the heads-up by our federal counterparts on this particular topic and it's working with the staff governing this particular issue.

 

MR. SAMSON: A payment was made to Gardner Pinfold Consulting Economists Ltd. for $35,469. I'm wondering if you could explain to us what work was carried out by this company.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The amount was for a review of the regulatory and policy environment of aquaculture in Atlantic Canada for the Aquaculture Division of the Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. These are very professional consultant firms that do a lot of good work for our staff and our department.

 

MR. SAMSON: Can you provide us with the report provided by Gardner Pinfold as to the findings of the review of aquaculture in Atlantic Canada?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: We'll certainly do our best to get any information that's available to the public. We'll take the request under consideration and we'll do our best to try to get that information to the member, and we'll move forward.

 

MR. SAMSON: And I'm assuming you'll be able to confirm, as well, that this work went out to tender and that the tender was awarded for this work. You have a payment of $100,000 made to the Department of Natural Resources. I'm wondering if you could advise why your department paid Natural Resources $100,000.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: This is money that's allotted for the department to do our enforcement, particularly the inland fisheries. It's something that we want protection - trout and bass and dealing with the inland waterways in the fisheries regarding inland fisheries.

 

MR. SAMSON: Is this a payment that's made every year? I'm curious, why is it not just a line item with Natural Resources, instead of being transferred over from Fisheries and Aquaculture every year?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Again, it's a line-by-line - this is an issue that was contracted out each year for them to do the enforcement for this department.

 

MR. SAMSON: I'm curious, in the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, what revenues do you receive as a department? I'm assuming there are licensing fees for processing facilities and that, but other than that, are there any other revenues that your department receives from other sources?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I'll try to run through these: Aquaculture, fees and other charges, $152,000; Fisheries and Aquaculture Loan Board, fees and other charges, $121,900; Inland Fisheries, fees and other charges, $294,700; and Marine Fisheries and Field Services, fees and other charges, $8,400.

 

MR. SAMSON: The fees paid by the processing facilities, I'm wondering, are they paid to your department or are they paid to another department?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Just to clarify, Mr. Chairman - I'm trying to do my math here - there's an additional fee from fish buyers and fish processors, $379,300. Would you repeat your last question?

 

MR. SAMSON: No, I think you've just answered it.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: And that is the last question, unfortunately. The time has expired for the Liberal caucus.

 

From a logistical point of view, there are only 13 minutes remaining this evening. Is it the intent of the Opposition to continue tomorrow with the minister in estimates, or are we going to wrap up tonight?

 

The honourable member for Cape Breton West.

 

MR. ALFIE MACLEOD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know if the minister needs any time for his closing statement.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: That was the question I was going to put forward. You have 12.5 or 13 minutes to close or you could take a couple of questions from the Progressive Conservative caucus, whichever you prefer.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I can speak for 13 minutes, Mr. Chairman, but the member opposite (Interruptions) I'm going to be generous and ask the member of the PC Party if he'd like to have one or two quick snappers. I need about five minutes for closing.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: We can give them more time. We could carry on tomorrow but I don't think that's the wish, so perhaps five minutes of questioning, is that reasonable?

 

MR. MACLEOD: Listen, Mr. Chairman, there's no problem, my questions will be short. It's the answers that we've been having trouble with.

 

I see in the Public Accounts, Supplementary Information, $10,000 was given to Cooke Aquaculture. What was this money for? Was it for reviews of their southwest Nova Scotia sites or what exactly was that money spent on?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: My understanding is the Cooke Aquaculture money in the amount of $10,000 represents a payment from the Community Development Trust, the Aquaculture Division of the Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and for Fracflow Consultants Inc. for water supply options evaluation.

 

MR. MACLEOD: For water supply evaluation? So we paid them to figure out if there was enough water for them to do what they wanted to do?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: This is for their hatchery information. Again, this is something that is very beneficial to the industry. I want to point out that Cooke - I guess I can go back, and I don't want to go back there and highlight them, but I think the member opposite can review some of the comments I made about Cooke and how valuable they are to the industry. So this particular consulting dealing with water flows and hatcheries is something that is important to this particular industry. Thank you.

 

MR. MACLEOD: I have one more question, Mr. Chairman, and that would be, your department gave $300,000 to Aqualife North America Inc. What does that company deal with? Is it aquaculture?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: My understanding is this company is located in Avonport and is dealing with new technology of shipping lobsters worldwide in some of these containers. The member opposite and some of the members here at the table may have observed some of those lobster holding facilities when they were at the International Boston Seafood Show. There were a number of contributors that were involved in this. To me, this is the leading technology so that we can put these containers on 18-wheelers and some cargo ships, and literally go around the world with a safe product. So again, this is money well spent and the industry will certainly benefit from it.

 

MR. MACLEOD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's the end of our questioning for tonight.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Minister, you have eight minutes for your closing remarks.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, it is certainly a pleasure to thank everybody for their participation here tonight. I know that it has been a long day for a number of us. First of all, I want to thank our staff, who have done a lot of research, and I'm sure that a number of questions asked here today will be evaluated and we'll be doing some more detailed work as we speak.

 

I also want to point out something that's really important to me. I really think it's an honour and a privilege to be in these particular buildings. I really think it's an honour to come from my background, as I visualized earlier about The Ships of Yule. Hopefully after the microphones are turned off I can give you a portion of that poem.

 

As a youth, I really knew that the fisheries were in my heart, in my blood, and to see how fishing has evolved over a number of decades in my lifetime and to know that these are valuable jobs in coastal communities is something that I don't take for granted. But I am also privileged that we can strengthen our policies and things that we can do - our loan programs - are things I really look forward to. I really believe in aquaculture and the potential there to grow our economy, especially in rural Nova Scotia.

 

Before I close, I can actually say that I was a bit disappointed in some of the comments or the questions. I want to highlight my disappointment in my closing remarks. I know it's always good to have a sandwich so I cut a sandwich into the good part, but I want to sandwich the disappointment before I move to my closing remarks. My disappointment is that the Opposition had an opportunity to talk about the owner-operator policy and I am disappointed that question was not brought on the record. (Interruptions)

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister has his closing remarks - you've had your opportunities.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, I'll be gentle. The comments I'm saying that I have some difficulty with is that knowing the importance of this owner-operator fleet separation policy is something that I added in my opening comments and I really believe that collectively, all political Parties need to stand up to Ottawa. I want to emphasize that I campaigned on when there's an issue that needs to be stood up and to bring and hold Ottawa - our federal counterparts - accountable, we are going to do that. I said in my earlier statements that this policy is the cornerstone of our coastal communities in Atlantic Canada and when you remove a cornerstone, there can be devastation to our communities.

 

With that, our position is that we have asked for more consultation with our federal counterparts on this issue. This is something that is important to all Atlantic Provinces and I want to make sure that we are on the record, that we support it, and we are there to stand by our inshore fisheries.

 

Mr. Chairman, I think I'm getting close to my few minutes left, but again, I want to thank everybody for their attendance here tonight. Thank you.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E10 stand?

 

Resolution E10 stands.

 

Thank you very much. That concludes the estimates of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. I thank the minister, all members, and all staff here this evening as well.

 

We are adjourned.

 

[The subcommittee adjourned at 8:34 p.m.]