Monday, May 29, 2006

Is Newfoundland and Labrador Afraid of DFO?

Last year the government of Prince Edward Island filed a law suit against the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The suit alleges that the Province is being short changed on quotas and as a result is not receiving its fair share of a publicly owned resource. Federal representatives attempted to have the case thrown out of court but the Supreme Court of P.E.I. denied their motion. Ottawa is now appealing the court’s ruling and that appeal is scheduled to be heard next month.

Central to the case is the premise that the Fisheries Minister has absolute power when it comes to granting, denying or setting quotas. The Province contends that regardless of discussions with stakeholders or any scientific evidence presented, ultimately decisions can be made by a single individual, the Minister, behind closed doors. The factors that lead to those decisions are unknown to this is a major concern. The process provides far too much room for political or other influences that might impact decisions and without public scrutiny it is impossible to know one way or another. The suit seeks to have these “omnipotent” powers removed from the Minister and for the process to be made fairer and more transparent.

Is it just me, or does this case, cry out for the involvement of Newfoundland and Labrador stakeholders. Remember, this is much bigger than a question of who gets how much of a fish quota. If the Federal government is denied on appeal and if PEI eventually wins its case, it would set a precedent that could change the way DFO and every other federal department functions in the future. For decades DFO has been accused of mismanaging stocks and passing out quotas for political reasons. A case like this one could change all of that and more.

Several groups including the Sierra Legal Defense Fund, The Ecology Action Centre, Living Oceans of BC and Earth Action have been given permission to intervene in the case. These groups intend to make arguments to the effect that DFO, as an arm of the Federal government, has the obligation to protect and properly manage a publicly owned resource. They are likely to contend that successive Ministers have been negligent and perhaps even corrupt in the way stocks have been managed and as a result the department should be held more accountable to the public for its decisions.

Can you see a voice here for Newfoundland and Labrador in this case? I sure can. Who better to back up the arguments of these groups and to discuss the impact of existing DFO management practices? The reality is that stocks have been devastated, mismanaged and practically annihilated thanks to the political maneuvering and inaction of the federal government? With 20,000 people in the Province directly dependent on the fishery and that fishery collapsing around their ears, the Province is slowly dying. This is a prime opportunity to make arguments for changing the way things are done. It is also an opportunity to change the way the province deals with DFO and every other government department, departments that have made a gaem out of toying with the Newfoundland and Labrador since 1949.

This is a chance for Newfoundland and Labrador to finally get a voice in Ottawa. If the courts rule that DFO is required to share with stakeholders the logic behind their decisions, it will mean that the same holds true for other departments. For example, what about the Department of Immigration (remember all those immigrants who’s deportations have caused so many local problems), the Department of Defense (think 5 Wing Goose or why there is such a small military presence along Canada’s Eastern flank) or how about the Department of Natural Resources (think upcoming Churchill Falls developments, offshore oil, etc.). The list is endless.

Here is a chance to go even further than PEI had intended to go. Over the years the federal government has done little to protect Atlantic stocks from foreign and domestic overfishing, in fact they’ve all but encouraged it. By not providing enough personnel, DFO has also forced the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to hire its own inland fisheries officers to protect freshwater species. Over the years DFO has produced scientific results and played political games that have led to a situation where nearly every commercial species on the Atlantic coast is on the brink of extinction. By virtue of abandoning the task entrusted to them, DFO has essentially given up all rights to manage the resource and an argument could be made to turn control of those resources over to the adjacent provinces.

Yes indeed, here is an opportunity that begs for the participation of Newfoundland and Labrador stakeholders, yet where are they? Where is the Premier? Where is the Provincial Fisheries Minister? Where are the Earl McCurdys of the world? I’ll tell you where they are. They’re sitting around discussing the carcass of the provincial fishery with none other than the Federal Fisheries Minister himself. Likely hoping he’ll provide them with a few hand outs or at the very least “help to facilitate” yet another band aid solution. In other words they hope to get some sort of a pay off, hush money if you will, that will allow everyone to continue hiding their heads in the sand and leaving the mess to yet another administration to worry about.

12 comments:

  1. Why bother as soon as it gets to the Supreme court of CANADA with it's 3 guaranteed Quebec judges and 3 Judges from Ontario it will be squashed in favor of Canada/Ontario's best interests.

    If Judges are supposed to be so impartial and blind why the need for guaranteed positions from Quebec?

    If Provincial partisanship is necessary why not have one bilingual judge from every province.

    The only way any province will ever get any satisfaction when they are butting heads with the Federallies is to go to an international court.

    ReplyDelete
  2. DFO has been the bitch of the Newfoundland political process for decades.

    In 1980 they (as well as scientists from Dal/UNB/MUN)recommended that the fishery for cod should be halted. The political leaders, fearful of a backlash at the poles refused, in the 90's when the fishery for cod was ended there was still people disagreeing with DFO's recommendations.

    The thought that "It will kill our communities" was the war cry rather then "We are sending a species to extinction".

    How often are you hearing on a call in show, "There's lot's of fish out there! Reopen the fishery!"

    We have more to fear from the political process then we do from DFO.

    The fishing industry and our political leaders are more concerned with careers and money then ecological integrity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If Judges are supposed to be so impartial and blind why the need for guaranteed positions from Quebec?

    Because the Supreme Court of Canada is also the final court of appeal for questions arising under the Code Civil in Quebec, and requires a panel of Civilians. It has to be an odd number; one is too few, five is too many; you do the rest of the math.

    If Provincial partisanship is necessary

    What "provincial partisanship"? Judges don't represent any particular province.

    The only way any province will ever get any satisfaction when they are butting heads with the Federallies is to go to an international court.

    What international court would have jurisdiction?

    ReplyDelete
  4. First Issue:

    How many internationl courts do you know of? :) Does the court he names change the validity of his argument?

    Private citizens can negotiate in an international court with their government over any issue, it has been done successfully hundreds of time.

    Second Issue:

    The Supreme Court of Newfoundland or the Supreme Court of Canada is not an agent of that government anyone can demand a fair hearing on an issue they have with their government. Thats why "gay marriage" has been successful dispite what politicians would like.

    Having said that, should that option fail it may be necessary to seek an international organization/cout to argue on your behalf

    RE: the Lubicon Cree land issue.

    ReplyDelete
  5. How many internationl courts do you know of? :) Does the court he names change the validity of his argument?

    You're assuming it has "validity" to begin with!

    Private citizens can negotiate in an international court

    You negotiate in court?

    with their government over any issue, it has been done successfully hundreds of time.

    Care to name a few of them?

    Having said that, should that option fail it may be necessary to seek an international organization/cout to argue on your behalf

    organization? Not the same thing as a court.

    RE: the Lubicon Cree land issue.

    Which international court heard which case involving the Lubicon Cree land issue?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Q: You're assuming it has "validity" to begin with!

    A: No more then your opinion on the issue, or mine.

    Q: You negotiate in court?

    A: Yes, "court" isn't like you see on TV most resolution are from negotiation rather then a cliff hanger jury verdict.

    Q: with their government over any issue, it has been done successfully hundreds of time.
    Care to name a few of them?

    A: Were you unable to find one?

    Q: Which international court heard which case involving the Lubicon Cree land issue?

    A: Have you looked into the details yet? or are you arguing from ignorance?

    ReplyDelete
  7. A: Yes, "court" isn't like you see on TV most resolution are from negotiation rather then a cliff hanger jury verdict.

    You can always negotiate a dispute, but you don't do the negotiating in a court.

    A: Were you unable to find one?

    You were, apparently.

    A: Have you looked into the details yet? or are you arguing from ignorance?

    There was a Human Rights Tribunal case... where was the court case?

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Newfoundland government has other plans for the fishery of our province. They have sided on the international scene of the international big fish processors, the United Nation, the World Bank and countries who can provide cheap labour. There has been an effort to change fish from a protein source to a luxury consumer food in the past ten years. Check out quarterly reports of the big fish processors. Icelandic Group is complaining higher prices for raw fish has been eating into the profit margins. As of now, there are planning to restructered and plans to pass increases of raw fish, through the value chain in a bid to improve profits and in the end higher retail prices. All the other ones are complaining of raw fish being too high, and there seems to be a theme that all the big international fish processors are working under; which is to increase profits by high retail prices, strong market demand, low production costs and reasonable regulatory costs and in order to do this is downsized the fishing fleets of each country, keep raw wild fish prices down by flooding the market with farm fish, and ship the fish to be processed to countries like China. The World Bank and United Nations have been pouring a great deal of money in third world countries dealing with aquaculture. All of the farm fish is being processed and has ben marketed to luxury consumers in the domestic and international markets. Aquaculture is a measure to keep wild stock from being over-harvest and a means to control the price of raw fish farmed or wild. The price of raw fish is very low world wide and it will be low until the wild fisheries are downsized to the point, where consumers will be eating farmed and at the same time, raw wild fish will be the same price as farmed. Keep in mind, at the retail level, fish products will always be at a high retail price in order for the few to rake in the prices.
    Now, the Newfoundland government does not want anything to do with PEI's suit against the federal government. That would be sending out mixed signals regarding the fishery. To do so, would not accomplish their goals regarding rural Newfoundland. The federal government will not do anything with the fishery of Newfoundland, because by going along with the big boys on the international scene, they will kill two birds with one stone; the small vessel fleet and the plant workers. The benefits would be able to use the fish in international trade. The fishery of Newfoundland will still be here, but in a form where most Newfoundlanders will be working in Alberta, in the Armed Forces. It will be foreigners and big fish processors who will control the fishery and small fishermen and small processors will be hit by rules and regulations to make it damn near impossible to make a good living fishing. The plants will be centralized on the Avalon and the majority will be in secondary processing. The provincial government wants rural Newfoundland to be downsize to a population that can be manage, and if PEI can proceed in the courts, it would be bad news for the government. I just wondering how they are going to respond. It should be interesting especially in these trying times in rural Newfoundland.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Follow the money.
    The feds want to be rid of the seasonal fishers and plant workers because it costs them through EI, and rightly so no job should be seasonal but there are other ways of accomplishing full time employment in the fishery and processing.
    The feds also want to be able to continue to use the Continental shelf as a bargaining chip in international and foreign trade for the benefit of Ontario's manufacturing industry.
    Big business wants to continue scrapping the bottom with trawlers/Draggers destroying the enviroment.
    Big Business wants to be rid of the processors inNL because then they will be able to ship raw materials unfettered to the international slave labour market thus increasing profits once again all to the detriment of NL'ians who have a god given right to eek a living out of the fishery by way of adjacency.

    ReplyDelete
  10. An interesting article on the VOCM site today:

    A tractor trailer loaded with fresh fish was prevented from crossing the Gulf to North Sydney by fisheries officers. The vehicle was seized by provincial fisheries Sunday evening, but Marine Atlantic did not have information on the exact nature of the incident.

    The company says the tractor trailer remained at the terminal in Port aux Basques until it started to leak. At that point, it was taken away. There is no word on whether any charges were laid.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Very disheartening the goings on. I'm afraid there is going to be riots like back in the 30's.

    Council of the federation is comming up July 24-26 25 in Humber valley would be a good time to protest for media attention.

    If that doesn't work demand our Federal MP's sit as Independants and not support Harpers Goernment if he isn't willing to support us in Canada.

    Or do like the farmers did and block of the Saint Lawrence Seaway with our fishing boats. See how fast that will get Ontario and hence Ottawa's attention.

    Talking about it amongst ourselves while good to get our stories and arguements hashed out doesn't do anything to put pressure on the Feds or Canadians to side with us for change and support.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I find it particularly interesting that the province of PEI had to take on the Feds. It reminds me of a similar case with a Newfoundland and Labrador company that had a showdown with the federal government. In the end it was a NL court that protected the company against the actions of the federal government. The situation was such that ACOA and DFO conspired together to vote against allowing the company bankrupcy protection. A bankruptcy proposal that allowed for full repayment to all stakeholders.

    In the end ACOA with a mandate to promote small business acted to defeat the business. In court the lawyer stated "of course ACOA and DFO are voting together on this, we work for the same people"

    All other shareholders voted FOR acceptance of the BIA proposal except for DFO and ACOA. Even though if the proposal was defeated NO ONE would have received any funds if the company had simply closed.

    In the end the federal government acts to preserve its own corruption. I don't need to remind people of the Gomery enquiry I'm sure.

    http://nauticaldata.blogspot.com/2005/07/chronology-of-events.html

    ReplyDelete

Guidelines to follow when making a comment:

1) Comment on the topic
2) Do not provide personal information on anyone,
3) Do not name anyone unless they are publicly connected with the topic
4) No personal attacks please

Due to a high volume of computer generated spam entering the comments section I have had to re-institute the comment word verification feature.