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 3rd, 2007 / 12:30 p.m.
See context

Research Director, Natural Resources Secretariat, Manitoba Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin

Michael Anderson

In terms of practical application on consultation policy, MKIO has put a lot of work into codifying the consultation policy for the application of the Crown consultation process in Manitoba. We began work on it within months of the Sparrow decision in April 1991. I can remember getting instructions from the MKIO executive council to proceed. Now, we are working with the Public Interest Law Centre of Manitoba to put together a workbook on Crown consultations so that first nations can present this workbook when a demand for Crown consultations is made.

The Northlands Denesuline First Nation recently issued a demand to the Government of Manitoba to engage in Crown consultations in respect of mineral exploration licences in their territory and have requested that no further licences be issued until the conclusion of those consultations. In order to give effect to that, a response on the process has to be provided. We're going to provide that.

I would add that on the Crown consultations conducted jointly by Manitoba and Canada on the Waskwatum generating system, MKIO was not part of that consultation process. The first nations that are directly affected were a part of the Crown consultations on Waskwatum. There was a report on that, so the mechanism can be reviewed.

The concept is that representative consultation does not meet the standard of consultation established by the Supreme Court in Sparrow, and Badger in our case, and then in Haida Nation and Taku River. It is a direct consultation with the directly affected first nations. The questions I listed before—is the right affected, is the infringement justified?—are the questions that must be asked.

From the work I do on the national policy advisory group with AFN's fisheries committee, we understand that DFO is awaiting the outcome in respect of Bill C-45. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is awaiting the outcome of work being done jointly between Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and the Department of Justice to develop a national consultation policy for the Government of Canada. We're eagerly waiting for that. We're going to ATIP it, actually, and try to get as much of it as we can right away. The end result is that it is a codified mechanism. It is a reliable process. It is between the Crown and first nations, and there has been a lot of groundwork done. The outcome of the consultation is another matter.

This is my last comment, if I might, Mr. Chair.

The key comment in Sparrow is that the presumption of validity on the part of Parliament is no longer valid. The Crown consultation process is not a matter of listening and then acting. If the Crown is going to take an action or make a decision that will infringe the exercise of a right that is recognized under section 35 of the Constitution Act, it may not do so unless it justifies that infringement. Consultation is part of the justificatory mechanism. The outcome of it would be establishing a valid legislative objective that would cause justification to be a conclusion in the consultative analysis.

May 3rd, 2007 / 11:40 a.m.
See context

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for appearing before us today.

One of the terms I've heard on both coasts is the term “fish laundering”, meaning you use fish to pay for your activities that have not been authorized by the crown—in this case, the Treasury Board.

Mr. Gould, you haven't had a chance to speak yet, but your industry is very valuable in your community of Prince Rupert—and Mr. Haché could, if possible, discuss on the east coast. Are there any allegations or concerns post-Larocque that DFO has done a nudge, nudge, wink, wink to various groups and associations that if we could do this, we'll help you? We could wait and pause until we get Bill C-45 to do it, but we need some money in order to do this so you can go and fish.

Is there any evidence of that at all, or any kind of documentation that may be available to show that DFO is indeed contravening the Larocque decision?

May 3rd, 2007 / 11:35 a.m.
See context

Executive Director, Canadian Sablefish Association; Chair, Canadian Fisheries Working Group

Ron MacDonald

I think Bill C-45 is here because the department lacked the policy framework to correct Larocque. The Fisheries Act, I think, is here not because it's been well thought out nor because it's had a broad consultative process. There's been no consultation—zero. There's been no consultation. They pulled it off the shelf. It had been a failed bill in the previous government, and they said we need to give the minister the authority to take fish from the public and use it without an appropriation from Parliament to pay for these things. It's the only reason that I can see that a new government would come forward without consulting.

Bill C-45 gives a mechanism for the government to do something that is questionable at best and that Larocque said the minister does not have the authority to do. I don't think we should easily give those authorities to the crown. I think you have to be very cautious when you impinge on the public right to fish; the resource is not a crown resource, but a public resource, and that's vastly different. This bill tries to talk about a whole bunch of other things, but the crux of the bill is to absolutely do that. That is something I'm fundamentally opposed to, and so are most fishermen.

The problem is that they've not only funded science and management through this nefarious process, but they have also funded associations, so we have associations of fishermen out there who now have no mechanism to run their operations. Some in the department are going around trying to get support for Bill C-45 by saying that if you pass it, forget all the bad things, because we can amend it to be good things. As a former chairman of this committee, I think that's an impossibility, but they're saying that if you do it, there would be a mechanism to fund your association. I find that a particularly weak argument to support a bad bill.

The fundamental thing is that in the absence of policy coming out of the government, and in the absence of legislation that I think is supportable, we have a funding shortfall of probably $30 million in a very fragile industry. Some of the weak fisheries will not survive, or, if they do survive, we will be penalized in the marketplace because we will not be able to prove, as Christina said, that we are fishing sustainably.

May 3rd, 2007 / 11:30 a.m.
See context

Member, Executive Director, Association des crabiers acadiens, Nova Scotia, Canadian Fisheries Working Group

Robert Haché

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Asselin. I will try to answer your question, because I am the person who is probably the most familiar with the Larocque decision. I worked on this issue as a consultant with the fishers involved, the crabbers in zone 12. What you say is quite right. Bill C-45 will give the minister all the authority to do exactly that. The problem will remain the same, if not worse, as long as there are no policies or guidelines to cover this practice.

On the other hand, in doing this, would Parliament be giving the government ownership of this resource, which, for years and years, has been considered a public resource, one that belongs to all Canadians, and not to the Government of Canada?

May 3rd, 2007 / 11:30 a.m.
See context

Bloc

Gérard Asselin Bloc Manicouagan, QC

The Federal Court of Appeal judge, Mr. Justice Décary, wrote that:

When the Minister decided to pay a contracting party with the proceeds of sale of the snow crab, he was paying with assets that did not belong to him. Paying with the assets of a third party is, to say the very least, an extraordinary act that the Administration could not perform unless so authorized by an act or by duly enacted regulations.

Could Bill C-45, which the minister is preparing to have passed, make a practice legal that is not exactly legal at the moment? Paying with the assets of a third party, unless authorized to do so by law or regulation, means, under Bill C-45 that what I consider a hidden, excessive tax would be imposed to increase funding for scientific research. Bill C-45, would allow the minister to do directly what is being done indirectly at the moment.

May 3rd, 2007 / 11:20 a.m.
See context

Liberal

Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE

But before you do that I would like to put this in the mix. I understand there's some concern about Bill C-45. Ms. Burridge indicated that perhaps this wasn't part of it, but indeed it is. Do you feel that paying for a review and programs with fish is actually a tax on the fish and the fishing industry itself?

May 3rd, 2007 / 11:10 a.m.
See context

Christina Burridge Executive Director, B.C. Seafood Alliance

Good morning, Monsieur Blais and committee members. Thank you very much for inviting us here.

I'm here for the B.C. Seafood Alliance. I have with me Mike Featherstone, who is the vice-president of the alliance. He's also the president of the Pacific Urchin Harvesters Association, and he's the co-owner of Ocean Master Foods, which is a value-added processing plant in the lower mainland.

I also have Chris Cue. Chris is the senior director of fishing operations for the Canadian Fishing Company, the largest seafood company in B.C., also a significant licence-holder. He's the elected seine representative for areas A and B salmon, and he's the elected seine representative for the Herring Industry Advisory Board. He's also involved in groundfish and halibut.

So between us, you have representatives of most of the fisheries on the west coast. I hope you'll give my colleagues a chance to speak very briefly to the issues in their fisheries.

The B.C. Seafood Alliance is an umbrella organization. Our 17 members represent 90% of commercially harvested seafood in B.C. That's about $750 million in sales annually.

We believe that sustainability and profitability can and should go hand in hand. We advocate for effective, efficient fisheries management that allows our products to be competitive in both the local and the global seafood marketplace. And I should tell you that this is a world where a chum salmon harvested in northern Japan, filleted in China, and sent to Vancouver sells for less than that of a fillet from one our own fish.

In order to be competitive in this world, capture fisheries, which by their nature are uncertain, need stable, ongoing access and we need a predictable, regulatory regime. Without this, harvesters and processors cannot invest to meet the needs of the marketplace and will be unable to attract new entrants to the fishery. In our view, this stability must be founded upon solid science and research, because these are fundamental to the future health, stability, and economic viability of the industry.

In January 2007 we wrote to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans expressing dismay over the lack of information from DFO on how it intended to deal with the implications of the Larocque and APPFA decisions, both in the short term and in the long term. We reminded the minister that we had a conference on co-management in 2002 and that one of the recommendations coming out of that, agreed to by DFO, was that DFO should clarify the governing policies and legalities of co-management funding mechanisms and provide clear direction to managers in the field about their use.

As a result of arbitrary practices on the east coast, we now have a situation on the west coast in which the formal policy of encouraging co-management of fisheries between representative commercial fishing organizations and DFO through various avenues, including using the proceeds from a specified allocation of fish to fund so-called “incremental” research and management activities, has been overturned.

I think you need to understand that this allocation is not free fish; it was agreed to by fishermen that it would be taken out of the commercial TAC. We wouldn't call it the perfect policy—that's why we made those comments in 2002—but it was based on a cooperative approach and it did work reasonably well for most of the last decade.

In our January letter we asked the minister to instruct the department to cover the costs of ensuring that fisheries could operate normally in 2007 while developing a new approach in conjunction with industry that would conform to the law of the land, would be fair to users of the resource, would be achievable over the long term, and would deliver the benefits that Canadians expect and deserve.

This hasn't happened. Instead, what we've had so far this year is a series of last-minute, ad hoc decisions that are patently inconsistent, unfair, and unsustainable. They are decisions that have pitted fishery against fishery, and they've strained everyone's working relationship with the department. This could hardly be otherwise. We understand that the Pacific region estimates the use-of-fish expenditures last year, 2006, at a minimum of $10 million, possibly as high as $15 million. This year they have $3.5 million to contribute to those activities.

The court decisions have put the west coast industry into turmoil. DFO hasn't been able to provide any indication of how it intends to cope or what mechanisms are available to us. We've been told that we might not hear about the new policy framework until July. Well, by then most of our fisheries are either complete or fully under way. Simply from the gap, we find it hard to believe that the policy could be anything but inconsistent and unfair.

Actually, we agree with DFO: DFO does not have the tools or the resources to manage fisheries effectively in the 21st century. I think we would disagree with DFO that Bill C-45 is an acceptable way to provide them, but that's another topic altogether.

I think it's really important that you understand that funding for science and research is already inadequate, even before the court decisions, but the demands on science are only going to grow. There's the Species at Risk Act; there's the trend in fisheries management to ecosystem-based management; and last of all, there's the market demand for independent third-party verification of sustainable management, which will require significant additional resources.

I want to take a quick look at four west coast fisheries. I'll start with roe herring. That fishery contributed in the past about $4 million a year to science and research through agreed-upon voluntary forfeit of catch and was used primarily for a roe quality testing program and for stock assessment. At the last minute—our fishery opened in March—DFO provided $900,000 in funding for both activities, though not all that $900,000 went directly to the two activities previously funded.

We need the roe testing program because it's the only way we can maintain our reputation as the top supplier of roe to Japan, and that's our only market. This year the roe testing program was barely adequate, and the stock assessment was inadequate. Next year we're told that DFO will be unable to fund the roe testing program, and stock assessment will only be partially funded.

Without these two activities, the multi-million-dollar investment funded jointly by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's CAFI program and industry to reposition Canadian roe in a dramatically changing marketplace will be jeopardized. The fishery in recent years has been worth somewhere between $50 million and $100 million, so it's a quite significant fishery that's at risk here. We have 1,550 licence-holders, and that makes DFO's suggestion that this should be funded through voluntary contributions impractical and legally unenforceable.

Since the chairman is telling me that I'm running out of time, I'll very quickly mention hook-and-line dogfish. This is a fishery that has been losing its market, its only market, in the European Union because of attempts by European conservation groups to protect European dogfish. It has to have Marine Stewardship Council certification. In order to do that, it needs a stock assessment, and that's $375,000, which DFO doesn't have, for the first year, and $70,000 after that.

On area A crab, I think Geoff Gould is going to speak to that later. Again we have a situation where the fishery is not able to deliver its full potential because of the shortfall in commitments to fund soft-shell crab sampling.

Very quickly, on salmon, we've had test fishing in place for decades. For the last 20 years or more, it has been paid for through use of fish. The Larocque decision means that cannot be done. We already saw curtailment in test fisheries and harvests last year. We don't know how it will work this year. And as one other example, we have $500,000 that was raised last year through use of fish, and for enhancement and remedial work on Cultus Lake sockeye. That work is essential to increasing the harvest level on late-run sockeye. That money is sitting in the bank. It cannot be used.

Fisheries ActPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

May 2nd, 2007 / 3:30 p.m.
See context

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

Mr. Speaker, I stand to present a petition today signed by well over 200 constituents from Glace Bay, Catalone, Main-à-Dieu and Louisbourg, who have voiced concerns about the forthcoming legislation, the changes in the Fisheries Act, Bill C-45. There is a great deal of concern about provisions in the owner-operator regulations and transfer of licence.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to not go forward with debate and call upon the government to go forward with honest and open dialogue with fishing communities and fishers, so that any change in legislation will have the best impacts on those affected.

May 1st, 2007 / 1 p.m.
See context

Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Larry Murray

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'll start off and then ask David to say a few words.

Certainly this is an area the committee might like us to come back and talk about, the whole range of announcements. The minister is open to propositions from other fleets around combining and all that kind of stuff. He hasn't closed the door on that at all.

I would also say that the $750,000 capital gains thing is $180,000 or so in the pockets of folks who are wanting to get out of the fishery. In terms of the access to capital, a combination of the capital gains and the changes that are in place we believe will give banks a greater sense of confidence in the industry. That would also have been part of the reason we would argue for Bill C-45, or some version of it. There are elements there that could bring longer-term reassurance to fishermen and bankers and others.

Having said that, it is a challenging scenario. To the extent that it was possible, I think the minister, in a very difficult area, which this committee has been talking to successive ministers about, came up with a solution that tried to walk the fine line between flexibility and moving forward for the majority of the industry.

April 24th, 2007 / 12:15 p.m.
See context

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Okay. Is it possible, then, to get the written plan of this, including any possible dredging that may have—? I'm sure that was all looked into, and there must be a report on it. Is it possible to get that report? If it is, you can just say yes, but I have one last question to ask of the minister.

There was no consultation with the province and the city on the moving of these vessels. We go back to the lack of consultation on Bill C-45. You, sir, and I were both at the Maritime Fisherman's Union when I asked them point-blank if anybody in the room was consulted on Bill C-45 prior to the tabling on 13 December, and nobody put up their hands.

I've asked PEIFA. I've asked many, many, many groups and individuals across the country over Bill C-45, and I disagree with you that a hoist amendment would kill the bill. I think by not having a possibility to consult with fishermen—because it is their livelihood we're talking about—in order to put the changes in Bill C-45 before second reading—because you, sir, and I both know that after second reading there are certain amendments that cannot be included in a bill.

We both know that. I think that if we're truly here, on opposite political sides, but here for the fishermen and their families, then we should allow fishermen and their families the opportunity before second reading to debate this issue so that we can put in their concerns and their amendments before it goes to second reading. I disagree with you when you say a hoist amendment would kill the bill because I think the opposite would do just that.

April 24th, 2007 / 11:40 a.m.
See context

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Da Pont and Mr. Hearn, I'd like to offer my personal thanks to the crew of the coast guard who are helping out the trapped sealers on the northern and eastern parts of Newfoundland. I think they're doing a great job looking after everyone. It's amazing there's been no loss of life, which is fantastic.

Mr. Minister, you announced, and Mr. Da Pont verified, the fact that because of the possible $10 million worth of work needed to be done to the BIO wharves, the decision was made to move two vessels from the maritime region into Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Minister, we're in the game of politics. But there's an old saying that if it doesn't pass the smell test, there's something wrong.

The reality is that I spoke to the union, local DFO officials, and the coast guard, and nobody was advised this was happening. The City of Halifax was not advised. The province was not advised. You would think that if you were going to take about 130 full-time equivalent jobs out of a region, two vessels, and the infrastructure attached to it, the province and the municipality should have at least been advised this was coming.

I know that Mr. Williams, the Conservative Premier of Newfoundland, is raving very hard at the Conservatives right now. I can't help but think that one ship going to Mr. Manning's riding and one ship going to your own riding—doesn't it smack of grievous politics? Mr. MInister, I'm sure that if the situation were reversed and you were in the opposition, you would be saying the same thing. That's my concern.

I have a question that's not very often asked on the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. We're hearing different things through the media on dual marketing or keeping it the way it is. Could you expand on that?

My last question for you is this, because time is running short. I believe Mr. John Duncan, who was a former Conservative MP, is now your special advisor on the west coast. Was he advised prior to the tabling of Bill C-45 and consulted on the act before it was tabled on December 13, 2006?

Thank you, sir.

April 24th, 2007 / 11:10 a.m.
See context

St. John's South—Mount Pearl Newfoundland & Labrador

Conservative

Loyola Hearn ConservativeMinister of Fisheries and Oceans

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Again, it's a pleasure to be here. You've already introduced the people with me. We also have some other officials from the department, in the event there are specific technical questions to which you would like answers. We'll try to make sure we can cover all the bases for you.

Since we met last November, our government has made further strides on behalf of Canada's fishers. I'm proud to highlight some of these achievements before taking your questions.

Let me start with this year's budget. We announced a little more than $581 million for initiatives related to DFO and the health of our oceans. Of that, the largest single investment was in the Canadian Coast Guard. It will receive $324 million over 10 years to buy, operate, and maintain six new vessels. This funding brings our government's commitment to coast guard fleet renewal to $750 million so far.

What this means in total is that four new offshore research vessels and twelve new midshore patrol boats will be on the water by 2014. The vessels will be deployed to their respective regions as they become available. I should add that all these boats will be built here in Canada.

Eight of the new midshore patrol vessels will be primarily for conservation and protection in the Maritimes, Quebec, and the Pacific. The other four are new additions to the fleet and will be used for maritime security in the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes region. The four offshore research vessels will be state-of-the-art. Three will be for fisheries science in the Pacific, maritime, and Newfoundland regions. The fourth will be for oceanographic science, based in the Maritimes.

Overall, five of the new vessels will be additions to the coast guard fleet and 11 will replace existing vessels nearing the end of their life expectancies. Plans are under way for a high-speed air cushion vehicle in Quebec for search and rescue.

In terms of fleet renewal, we're doing the right thing. We are adding and replacing resources according to where they are needed most. For example, I also announced a redeployment of two coast guard heavy icebreakers, the Terry Fox and the Louis S. St-Laurent, from the Maritimes to Newfoundland and Labrador. This measure will save Canadians about $10 million in additional infrastructure costs that would have been necessary to keep the vessels in Halifax Harbour. These icebreakers operate in the Arctic from June to November and in the gulf during the winter. There is more than enough wharfage in St. John's and Argentia, and both of these harbours are closer to the Arctic, which is their main service area. So there is no operational need to keep the icebreakers in the Maritimes. Building additional facilities there will be a waste of public money, something the Auditor General has already mentioned.

As you may have seen in the national news, the Terry Fox is in Newfoundland right now to free up some 90 vessels trapped in the ice. Clearly, the operational need is there for the vessels.

Canadian fishers also fared well in other areas of this year's budget, including $39 million for fishery science over two years and $20 million over two years for the Atlantic integrated commercial fisheries initiative. DFO has also received $30 million over two years of the $110 million devoted to implementing the Species at Risk Act, and $9 million of the $19 million for a new oceans initiative will also come our way over the next couple of years to help us deliver Canada's oceans action plan.

We increased the lifetime capital gains exemption to $750,000. Credit for this initiative can certainly go to the committee, and particularly the chair. This will help better rationalize the fishing industry by aiding fishers in retiring on their own terms.

I should point out that the main estimates you have seen tell only part of the story concerning funding to my department. I am tabling two decks that go into greater detail. One concerns the main estimates themselves, and the second updates our expected funding this year, including funding from the recent budget. Of course, challenges and operating pressures certainly remain, and as much as we'd like to, we simply can't do everything everyone asks for.

Let me add something else about another item of interest to the committee—the small craft harbours program. I am pleased to highlight that the $20 million in temporary funding, which the past government scheduled to sunset this year, will be permanently added to the budget. With that money and the additional $11 million provided to the program this year, the total program funding will be $96.8 million. This is good news, and it stabilizes the budget at last year's level, but I'm hoping to secure additional funding to maintain these harbours, which are so vital to our coastal communities.

In relation to fisheries renewal, over the past year I've spent a great deal of time talking to fishermen, provincial ministers, and other fishery stakeholders, and what emerged from these discussions and our own research was that Canada's fishery continues to face significant challenges.

With this in mind, I was pleased to recently announce some of the initiatives we're putting in place to better support the fishing industry. From a national perspective, we announced a new integrated approach to fisheries management that has come to be known as “oceans to plate”. This is an approach where we focus on getting the greatest value for fishermen and for all Canadians from that resource.

Much of the work that lies ahead involves restructuring and rationalizing different parts of the fisheries. Our capital gains tax exemption, which I mentioned earlier, will be crucial to enabling this to happen. Fishermen understand that restructuring and rationalization is necessary for the long-term viability of the industry. And we are looking at different market-based approaches to achieve this in various fisheries.

At the same time, fishermen want to ensure that after consolidation, after rationalization takes place, the licences are in the hands of independent fishermen. Given this, I have taken steps to strengthen the owner-operator and fleet separation policies for Atlantic Canada that help to ensure that the wealth, benefits, and control of the fishery remain in the hands of independent fishermen. So I'm ending a practice called “controlling trusts agreements”. Hopefully, this will, as this committee has dictated many times, clean up the fishery. I think these measures will go a long way toward helping fishermen run their own operations.

I also announced our intention to establish a fishery sustainability checklist for Canada's commercial fisheries that will be used to demonstrate to our markets and to others the sustainability of our fisheries. This will help Canadian fish and seafood to better compete on the world stage, as retailers and consumers are demanding more products that have been certified eco-friendly.

We're also pleased to announce a number of financial measures that will help put Canadian fishermen on a firmer footing.

We'll be reviewing licence fees across the country to make sure our approach is a fair one in light of rising costs to doing business in the fishery.

The Department of Human Resources and Social Development will be contributing half a million dollars toward the fishery skills and training strategy. The strategy will be organized by the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters and will help support our new oceans-to-plate approach within the industry.

For the Quebec fishery, I'm committed to bringing permanence and stability to sharing arrangements there by 2010. I have also committed to establishing geographic fleet shares in certain fisheries, which will provide further stability. As well, we are planning to conduct a viability study for the offshore northern shrimp industry.

We all know that shrimpers in New Brunswick and Quebec are seeking licence fee relief to help mitigate lower shrimp prices and increasing costs of things like fuel, which is having an impact in all parts of the industry. I can tell you that I'm keeping a close eye on the situation, and I should make it clear that shrimp licences will be part of the national fee review.

I'm also confident that other measures we're putting in place will provide a greater opportunity for fishers to manage their businesses more effectively.

In the spirit of self-determination for fishers, I'm pleased to move forward on several other measures under the federal-provincial fishing industry renewal initiative for Newfoundland and Labrador. These initiatives follow significant consultations with fishery stakeholders and much work on the part of the province and my own department.

To help the industry self-rationalize, we've removed a number of regulatory barriers. For example, we will allow fishers to combine fishing enterprises, and we've introduced a new class of vessel size—let people build bigger boats for safety and for sensible reasons. This will give core fishermen the flexibility to use the boat that best fits their needs. And we'll eliminate volume restrictions in the current vessel replacement policy. We will also help to restructure and rationalize the fisheries inshore shrimp fleet by converting temporary inshore licences to regular ones.

Taken together, I believe these investments and initiatives will give Canada's fishers more flexibility and choice in running their businesses. They will help to make the industry more viable and sustainable for those who rely on it today and in the future.

Let me say a brief word on the international front. This past fall Canada was instrumental in helping NAFO reform itself into a more effective fisheries management organization. This year's season is well under way, and I'm very proud of the fact that there hasn't been one citation issued to boats for overfishing or misreporting the catch. They can no longer afford to do so, thanks to the tough sanctions we helped realize. It is real progress.

What lies ahead? The main priority is Bill C-45. Many of the changes it proposes to the Fisheries Act will help support our goal of improving the economic viability of Canada's fishery, and it will help to make fisheries management in Canada more inclusive, accountable, and transparent.

Right now there's a hoist amendment before the House that will effectively kill the bill. It would not buy more time for further consultation, as has been suggested. It takes the bill out of commission completely.

We've been accused of not consulting enough on the bill, when extensive consultations on a renewed Fisheries Act have in fact been ongoing in the department for years. This includes hundreds of fisheries consultations and information sessions from coast to coast. Let me add that the text of the bill has been publicly available since December 13.

Our goal will be to get the bill into committee so that members can review it clause by clause to ensure it will provide the modern legislative framework we need for a sustainable fishery well into the century. Nothing is ever so good that it can't be improved. I'm willing to work with anyone who cares as much about the fishery as I do to improve that key piece of legislation. If we can't have the best piece of legislation, it's nobody's fault but our own.

I again thank the committee for inviting me here today, and I'd certainly be pleased to take your questions.

I hope we've impressed upon you what the government is doing and that we're doing it in the best interests of Canadians. As I've always said, you can do so little alone, but through working with the members of the committee and others interested in the industry, we can do a lot.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Fisheries ActPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

April 18th, 2007 / 3:10 p.m.
See context

Conservative

John Cummins Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on Parliament to withdraw from Parliament Bill C-45, the proposed new fisheries act, and calls on the minister to engage in open dialogue with fishermen before proceeding.

April 16th, 2007 / 9:15 a.m.
See context

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, folks, and thank you for making the presentations.

First, on your point, Steve, on the new Fisheries Act, although it's not related to this hearing, I do know, having chaired the fisheries committee before, that habitat is a huge issue in B.C. and trying to deal with DFO in that regard. Our position at the moment on the bill--why we put the hoist motion in place--is do we want the bill to go to committee before second reading? The bill clearly was developed by the bureaucracy in Ottawa, which doesn't understand what things are like on the ground. It's a lot easier to change a bill if the consultations are held first, rather than after, so that's why the position is there. So certainly if you want to write the minister and tell him to come to his senses and do some consultations and let it go to committee before second reading, we'd welcome that.

The pressure from imported product, which you also mentioned, is a huge issue that's not directly related to the agricultural policy framework discussion, but it is one we hear about consistently. I was talking to some people the other day in the apple industry, and maybe you can fill me in on what the situation here is. The apple industry in some areas is basically going under because concentrated product is coming in from China. They're adding 80% Canadian water and calling the product a “Product of Canada”. We're going to have to deal with this issue. It's the same with honey from China.

There were a couple of others that I think Tim mentioned as well, such as the difficulty of products coming in here with which our competitors can use a herbicide or pesticide or fungicide that we can't use. We restrict it for safety reasons, yet product grown with the use of that herbicide or pesticide in other countries comes in here just the same. It's an issue we've grappled with for a while. I'd like to know what you propose as a solution on that end, because obviously we haven't found it yet. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency I think has improved in part because this committee demands that they come before us every six months for a progress report. If you have anything in that area, I'd certainly welcome hearing it.

The last question, before I go to answers, is on your point as well, Tim. In fact I dealt with one of the greenhouses out here that is in the process of going under over a pest. The difficulty is with CFIA in that regard to a certain extent. I understand why they have to do what they do, but in the dairy industry or in the cattle industry, if we have a cow with tuberculosis, it's immediately pulled out of the herd, and compensation is right there, right now. Why can't we do the same thing with pests in the horticulture industry?

That's my series of questions to start.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

March 29th, 2007 / 3:05 p.m.
See context

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, on the question of Bill C-16, it is obvious that the Liberal House leader is very concerned about having an election and wants to do anything he can to stop it. Having watched the news last night and having seen some numbers, I can understand his sentiments. That is not surprising.

However, I am also not surprised that he could not remember what the bill was about. That is because it has been out of this House for half a year while the Liberal Senate was trying to deal with it. If those members wanted it passed quickly perhaps they could have avoided making amendments to it. However, there are amendments and we have to consult about them. As well, certainly, the information about everyone having consented is very different from the information that has been provided to me by the other parties to this point.

We will continue to pursue that and we hope to move forward on democratic reform. At the same time, as we said earlier, we will invite the other parties to move forward with Bill S-4 in the Senate. If they want to see things move quickly, that would represent good democratic reform. As well, we invite them to indicate their support for Bill C-43.

However, this afternoon we will continue with the list of bills on today's Projected Order of Business.

Tomorrow we will begin debate on the budget implementation bill. When the House returns from the Easter break, it will continue with the budget implementation bill if it is not already completed tomorrow.

Also on the list of bills for that week are: Bill C-33, on income tax; Bill C-40, on the Excise Tax Act; Bill C-10, on mandatory and minimum penalties; the Senate amendment to Bill C-16, fixed dates for elections, if we can get everyone's agreement on that to move quickly; Bill C-27, on dangerous offenders; and Bill C-45, the Fisheries Act, 2007.

Thursday, April 19 shall be the first allotted day in this supply period.

The Liberal House leader continues to make comments about moving quickly today. I wish he had been over there in the Senate talking to his Senate friends for the past six months while we were waiting. Perhaps while he is busying hurrying things up he can go and talk to the senators about Bill S-4.

I have a motion that I would like to make at this time.

There have been consultations, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practices of the House, the remaining debate on the motion to concur in the second report of the Standing Committee on Health be deemed to have taken place and all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Wednesday, April 18, at the end of government orders; and notwithstanding Standing Order 33(2), government orders shall conclude today at 5:30 p.m.