Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.
Fisheries committee No. The particular department cannot use the sale of quota to finance.... The department can charge a fee for a licence; it does that already. But it cannot use revenue from quota to pay for its activities.
May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting
Robert Haché
Fisheries committee Certainly not.
May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting
Robert Haché
Fisheries committee I think that statement is correct. If, at some point, a group of fishers wanted to take money out of their own pocket to contribute to the costs of an activity in partnership with the government, whether scientific in nature or something else, in my opinion, this would not run co
May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting
Robert Haché
Fisheries committee Very quickly, the advantage for bureaucrats in saying that one pays 20% and the other pays 100% is very simple: it's divide and conquer. This is something we've seen at DFO for a long time. Anybody who's been involved with that department knows that. This has to stop. We're goi
May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting
Robert Haché
Fisheries committee It deals with one case—one case that happened in 2003. Another judgment, the APPFA judgment from Federal Court, also has jurisprudence that deals with a situation in 2005. There are specific cases of using resources to finance government activities, but there are an awful lot
May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting
Robert Haché
Fisheries committee They are holding the money.
May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting
Robert Haché
Fisheries committee We don't know. We're going to court. We have applied for mandamus to force the department to pay that money out. It is in a legal proceeding right now, but that is another example that goes to show this chaotic situation.
May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting
Robert Haché
Fisheries committee Yes. I have an example too. In area 12 in 2006 an allocation of 1,000 tonnes of crab was given to APPFA, a fishermen's organization, in exchange for $1.9 million that would go to pay for science. Following the Larocque decision on June 23, a lot of that money had not been spent
May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting
Robert Haché
Fisheries committee This is just a very quick example. With snow crab, you have stock assessment surveys. They're done yearly. They allow you to know, in real time, how much available commercial biomass there is in the water. As an example, in 2003, just before Larocque—the decision of Larocque come
May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting
Robert Haché
Fisheries committee It was established in 1995 and was based on some very good intentions: the government wanted to fund partnership agreements with the fishery by giving it more responsibilities and some decision-making power. The fact is that the department did not have the authority required to a
May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting
Robert Haché
Fisheries committee Our main concern, Mr. Asselin, is the lack of a clear policy on the part of the federal government and Fisheries and Oceans following the Larocque decision. The problem is that no decision or program tells fishers clearly how scientific research will be funded. Some of our collea
May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting
Robert Haché
Fisheries committee Larocque is the same as Décary.
May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting
Robert Haché
Fisheries committee 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 righ
May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting
Robert Haché