Fisheries Act, 2007

An Act respecting the sustainable development of Canada's seacoast and inland fisheries

This bill was last introduced in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in October 2007.

Sponsor

Loyola Hearn  Conservative

Status

Not active, as of Dec. 13, 2006
(This bill did not become law.)

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

This enactment repeals and replaces the Fisheries Act. It seeks to provide for the sustainable development of Canadian fisheries and fish habitat in collaboration with fishers, the provinces, aboriginal groups and other Canadians.
It sets out management principles governing the exercise of responsibilities under the Act, and provides tools and authorities to improve the ability of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to properly manage fisheries and fish habitat.
Part 1 establishes a regime for the proper management and control of fisheries. It allows the Minister to stabilize access and allocation in fisheries, issue fishing licences, conclude agreements with groups that participate in a fishery and issue fisheries management orders.
Part 2 provides for the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat.
Part 3 provides for the control and management of aquatic invasive species.
Part 4 provides the necessary powers to administer and enforce the Act.
Part 5 establishes the Canada Fisheries Tribunal and sets out a system of licence sanctions for fisheries violations to be administered by that Tribunal, which will also consider appeals of licence decisions.
Part 6 provides for regulations and other related matters required for the administration of the Act.
Part 7 sets out transitional provisions, consequential amendments and coordinating amendments and repeals certain other Acts.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

May 30, 2007 Failed That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following: “Bill C-45, An Act respecting the sustainable development of Canada's seacoast and inland fisheries, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.”.

May 15th, 2007 / 11:35 a.m.
See context

Bloc

Gérard Asselin Bloc Manicouagan, QC

You seem to be in favour of updating the Fisheries Act. In my view, the only problem with the Act is that it is over a hundred year's old. Aren't you afraid that Bill C-45 will contain all of the decisions that went against DFO? I am referring to the decision brought down in the Larocque case, where service and research were being funded with crabbers' money.

Aren't you afraid that Bill C-45 might allow DFO to demand quotas to fund research and development?

May 15th, 2007 / 11:30 a.m.
See context

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

We are to say yes or no in principle. So far, what are your thoughts on Bill C-45?

May 15th, 2007 / 11:30 a.m.
See context

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

On Bill C-45, you said your response is going to be in October. Is that correct?

May 15th, 2007 / 11:15 a.m.
See context

Chair, Acadian Peninsula Traditional Crab Fishermen's Coalition Committee

Serge Savoie

Moreover, the minister made a commitment to review the costs in various sectors of the industry and to make them fairer. I am talking about licences, and so on.

Finally, Minister Hearn increased the capital gains exemption which was $250,000 under the Liberals to $750,000, which is huge and which will help mainly crabbers.

After all of these congratulatory remarks to the minister, I would like to tell you that we intend to study Bill C-45, not with a view to demolishing it, but with a view to being constructive. The minister is quite right to amend a piece of legislation that is over 128 years old. In passing, we have received a letter from the minister asking us to provide our input by the end of October. If you want to invite us back, we could discuss the bill with you.

Now, that's enough compliments for the minister. He had promised to come and meet with us at home, on the Acadian Peninsula, where the fishery is under way. He did not keep his promise. At his request, Senator Comeau was to accompany him. He did not keep his promise. We understand that he is very busy. I want to highlight that his staff, at least the people with whom we have had discussions, are excellent people. However, I must add that there is a blatant lack of communication, because many of them are not bilingual. As a result, there is often a lack of communication on both sides.

I think that a good Acadian who knows the fishery could serve this minority Acadian community that has seen so much humiliation. Are we not a founding people, like our aboriginal and anglophone brothers? We have seen enough of the Justin Trudeau of this world.

The snow crab fishery is vital for the economy of New Brunswick and the Acadian Peninsula. The industry is the peninsula's economic driver. It creates a livelihood for thousands of people directly and thousands of others indirectly. The snow crab industry is threatened until 2010. Biologists and scientists alike are predicting a decline in stocks. Quotas will therefore suffer the consequences of that.

Under the Liberal government, even independent studies, that I have here and that I can share with the chairman, like the one conducted by Gardner Pinfold, stress the fact that political pressure was so strong that DFO was accused of mismanaging the fishery. What do you think about the scientific research given to the cod fishers and the fact that the crabber who appealed the decision in court won? I have a copy of that here and I can leave it for the chair.

Our proposals are as follows:

(1) That the remainder of the current area 12 be reserved exclusively for the traditional crabbers from the Acadian Peninsula, Aboriginals, our brothers in the Gaspé Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands, crabbers in Prince Edward Island and the two crabbers in Nova Scotia.

(2) That scientific research be given to traditional crabbers. I believe, given this court decision, that the minister will have to comply.

(3) That there be no sharing with other types of fishers, until 2010.

(4) That there be a public inquiry into resource management by DFO Moncton.

There are 140 traditional fishers. When you add our aboriginal brothers' 80 boats, that makes 240 traditional crabbers in area 12. Today there are more than 400 fishers. Of course, more than 160 of them are non traditional fishers. That cannot continue for 2008, 2009 and 2010. The Acadian Peninsula has paid a very high price...

Yes?

May 8th, 2007 / 12:45 p.m.
See context

Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Larry Murray

Perhaps I could wade in. It is our opinion, and in the context of the policy framework we'll be taking forward, and in the context of Bill C-45, as currently constructed, that it is something that the minister should do. In other words, we see shared stewardship as being a fundamental underpinning to the conservation of the fishery. It's challenging, as the chair has pointed out, on how you get there, but certainly at the moment the legal advice is “cannot”, and so we're working really hard to figure out how to move forward now and in the immediate future. Certainly it is the current view that some version of shared stewardship, supported by some version of joint project agreements and so on, is a good thing for the fishery.

May 8th, 2007 / 12:35 p.m.
See context

Director General, Economic Analysis and Statistics, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Dr. William Doubleday

Basically, the Federal Court decisions last year said that Parliament has not given you the authority to allocate fish to fund collaborative arrangements. The section in Bill C-45 that you're referring to, if it becomes law, would give us the parliamentary authorization to do so.

May 8th, 2007 / 12:20 p.m.
See context

Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Larry Murray

If I could leap in, I think the last question is a difficult subject for everybody, including those in the industry. It's challenging in some of these discussions to figure out what somebody said and what somebody heard. I don't want to impugn anybody, and I know you're not either, so we'll answer those on paper.

But I think the last question is really at the heart of this issue. It's the issue of who pays for the fishery. We're engaging in a fundamental policy debate that happens to have been triggered by the Larocque decision, but maybe that policy debate should have been triggered or would have been triggered.

You know, part of the problem is that it's not all apples and apples either. Someone who holds an ITQ quota for sablefish on the west coast is in a different position entirely from somebody fishing in a now less than 39-foot boat in the inshore fishery off Newfoundland, so how do you square that? Our policy framework tries to come to grips with that, but do the 30 million Canadians owe the 48 lucky Canadians who have the sablefish quotas? Is it appropriate that everything gets paid there, the same as it might be for the inshore fishermen in Newfoundland?

I think that's the debate we need to have, and I think this committee needs to play a big role in it, whether it's around the contents of Bill C-45 or whether it's us out there talking to understandably unhappy fisherfolk from coast to coast to coast around this.

But it's a hell of a question, and we need to figure out if we're going to move forward with quota fisheries, which seem to be those where conservation happens. What does that mean, and what does it mean to have a quota, and what about the second generation of those quotas? Should I be sitting in my condo in Hawaii with my sablefish ITQ, leasing it out to someone else, and 30 million Canadians are not only giving me a deal on...?

We are launching a licence fee review as well, because as Mr. Stoffer said, that may be part of the answer here. It seems to be the answer in Iceland. I don't know, but we do need to have a look at this and we need to have the debate, and that question is at the heart of the debate, actually.

May 8th, 2007 / 12:10 p.m.
See context

Director General, Economic Analysis and Statistics, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Dr. William Doubleday

I will answer the first question.

If Bill C-45 survives in its current form, there will be mechanisms to make fishery management agreements involving fish allocations legal. It is up to Parliament. The Bill, as proposed, would allow for such agreements in the future.

I will now give the floor to Ms. Watson-Wright.

May 8th, 2007 / 12:10 p.m.
See context

Bloc

Gérard Asselin Bloc Manicouagan, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have two questions. I will put them to you one after the other and you may answer them in the order you wish.

Will Bill C-45, further to the court's decision in the Larocque case, make something that seems illegal legal? What was said is that they were paying with goods that did not belong to them. Will Bill C-45 straighten out the situation? That is my first question.

Here is my second. You are aware that climate change is the issue of the day. Is there any concern on the part of Fisheries and Oceans Canada with regard to climate change? What is the Department's vision for the future as it pertains to the direct or indirect effects of these changes on species and their habitat?

May 8th, 2007 / 11:25 a.m.
See context

Kevin Stringer Director General, Resource Management Directorate, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

I have a couple of points on that.

As the deputy said, I think the sense is that Bill C-45 would provide some tools to be able to assist with this, but in no way was Bill C-45 specifically drafted in order to deal with the Larocque stuff.

We have arrangements with fisheries groups. We do integrated fisheries management plans. We work as much as we can with fisheries groups. We don't have the legal authority to enter into an arrangement with those groups to really get into co-management. At this point it's consultation and engagement, and as much as possible we go to co-management.

We believe those sections of the proposed Fisheries Act in Bill C-45 would give us more tools to do that and to make these longer-term types of arrangements with groups, with associations. Those sections have been in previous versions. We do think it would give us some tools to address the issue of better engaging fisheries groups in more co-management types of arrangements.

May 8th, 2007 / 11:25 a.m.
See context

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Was Bill C-45 developed under the guise of the Larocque decision and needing to get around that? In other words, does Bill C-45 satisfy the courts with regard to the Larocque decision?

May 8th, 2007 / 11:25 a.m.
See context

Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Larry Murray

If the context of Bill C-45 dealing with this area is built on the same policy framework as our approach to Larocque--and that is based on our experience that shared stewardship with folks involved in the industry having part of the decision-making authority, having part of the ownership of it, works better in those fisheries--in that context, that same philosophy is captured in Bill C-45. That is obviously subject, as is this policy framework we're moving forward with, to a policy discussion--in the case of Bill C-45, discussion among parliamentarians based on what you hear, and in the case of this framework, a direct conversation with industry from coast to coast in the next few months.

May 8th, 2007 / 11:25 a.m.
See context

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

You touched on Bill C-45 and how this is going to.... Let me ask straight out: is it going to reverse?

May 8th, 2007 / 11:20 a.m.
See context

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

You may have to. I've been last before, and sometimes it's necessary.

First, thank you for coming.

Second, we heard some pretty explosive comments made in our last committee. We'll get to that a bit later. I have a suspicion my honourable colleague down the way might also do that.

I would like my question to concern Bill C-45 and the ramifications of the Larocque decision.

First, Mr. Murray, how much of a shortfall has the Larocque decision been when it comes to management and conservation?

May 8th, 2007 / 11:15 a.m.
See context

Dr. William Doubleday Director General, Economic Analysis and Statistics, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Thank you.

I have a brief presentation on our response to last year's decisions in the Federal Court. I'd like to take you through it. It gives the context and an indication of what our response is.

DFO has a long-standing policy of shared stewardship with the industry. We believe this gives better results, sustainable use of the fish resources, and higher value when those with the most attachment to the resources, the fishers, are involved in its sustainable management and conservation.

DFO, in cooperation with the industry, has entered into joint project arrangements with the industry to agree on incremental activities that benefit both parties. These have been funded directly by the organizations through a cash contribution or through the use of fish. The use of fish means a quota was allocated for the purposes of generating money for the project.

The use of fish policy evolved over the years until the 2006 court decisions. In 2006, the Federal Court of Canada held in the Larocque and APPFA decisions that the minister did not own the fishery resource. DFO can no longer use allocations of fish to finance scientific or fisheries management activities, and DFO cannot issue a licence with an allocation of fish for financing purposes. So the court was not critical of having collaborative arrangements; the court was critical about allocating fish to pay for them.

As a result of those decisions, DFO reviewed existing practices, including collaborative arrangements that had a use of fish component for financing purposes. We came to the conclusion that many arrangements will have to be modified in order to be brought into compliance with the court ruling. DFO will seek to sustain activities essential to conservation and to minimize any disruption.

The minister, through DFO, is responsible for managing a common property owned by the people of Canada on behalf of all Canadians. This involves developing and implementing integrated fisheries management plans based on scientific advice and stakeholder consultation. These result in the creation of private benefits for licence holders authorized to use the common property. DFO pays for conservation and sustainable management of the common property. The purpose of collaborative arrangements was to allow incremental activities to be conducted that would increase the benefit to licence holders.

Our primary objectives and principles in responding to these decisions are that the minister will act within his legislative authority; highest priority will be given to programs for conservation and protection of fish and effective management of fisheries; fishers who benefit from access to public resources should contribute to costs of managing them; we seek operational consistency across the country; we support shared stewardship; and we want to achieve a fair distribution of public financing across fisheries and regions.

Part of the way forward on this is our proposed new Fisheries Act, Bill C-45, which was tabled in December 2006 and has not yet been passed, which would establish modern legislation for sustainable development of seacoast and inland fisheries and would authorize the minister to enter into fisheries management agreements with recognized fishing organizations to further conservation, sustainable development, or participation in fisheries management. Under these fishery management agreements, funding arrangements, including quotas of fish, could be entered into with respect to the management of the fishery.

We also have a new investment in fisheries research. Budget 2007 announced new financing to expand fisheries science to respond to new and emerging pressures, including the court rulings adversely affecting government-industry partnership mechanisms for fisheries science, and new demands for ecosystem-based approaches to support conservation and long-term sustainability.

For the government-industry collaborative arrangements and stock assessment and related research that are consistent with the court decisions, we received $10 million for fiscal year 2007-08, followed by $12 million a year until 2012.

DFO is currently reviewing about 170 collaborative arrangements. There is a large number of them, they're quite diverse, and they're spread across the country. That's a lot to look at. Allocations of fish previously used to fund collaborative arrangements have returned to the fishers.

DFO will assign the highest priority to conservation and effective fisheries management, and ensuring minimal disruption of fisheries. It will assign its resources primarily to avoid the risk of serious or irreversible harm to conservation. Where possible, it will consider providing programs and services that are incremental to those essential to conservation.

Regarding progress to date, we immediately compiled an inventory of arrangements after the court decisions and began an internal review process. A national committee, which I had the pleasure chairing, was established to review the existing approach to collaborative arrangements. We developed an action plan—including a policy guidance framework, which has been distributed to the committee—and a decision-making process. We have a master list of collaborative arrangements, with associated legal risk, and we group those into similar categories to expedite the review and approval process.

We are undertaking a case-by-case review of each arrangement. We will work with industry to find ways to obtain the benefits of those arrangements in a way that's consistent with the court decisions.

We are also rolling out an engagement strategy. I'm travelling with some colleagues to Vancouver next Monday to meet with the B.C. industry, as the first of a series of consultations.

Together with increased science support for ecosystem-based management, this response will maintain an improved DFO scientific research and advisory capacity.

Thank you.