VZCZCXRO5395
RR RUEHHA RUEHVC
DE RUEHOT #0094/01 0172015
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 172015Z JAN 08
FM AMEMBASSY OTTAWA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 7161
INFO RUEHHA/AMCONSUL HALIFAX 2895
RUEHVC/AMCONSUL VANCOUVER 2592
RUCPDC/NOAA WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 000094 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR WHA/CAN AND OES/OMC; NOAA FOR NMFS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EFIS SENV PREL CA
SUBJECT: CANADIAN FISHERIES LEGISLATION -- THIRD TIME CHARM? 
 
------ 
Summary 
------- 
 
¶1.  Summary:  On November 29th, 2006, Fisheries and Oceans 
Minister Loyola Hearn introduced a new bill to Parliament to 
modernize Canada's 139-year-old Fisheries Act.  While there 
is unanimous agreement that the Act must be updated, there 
are differences among stakeholders regarding changes that 
should be made, and how far those changes should go.  This is 
the third attempt in a decade by the Department of Fisheries 
and Oceans (DFO) to update the Fisheries Act.  Barring an 
unforeseen early election, DFO officials believe the 
Government will have sufficient time to pass the legislation 
by October 2009 -- the latest date by which national 
elections must be held.  End Summary. 
 
---------- 
Background 
---------- 
 
¶2.  Canada's Fisheries Act is the federal law that governs 
the management of fisheries and the protection of fish 
habitat in Canada.  It was enacted in 1868, the year after 
Canada was formed.  That was before all the provinces and 
territories now on Canada's coasts -- most notably the 
provinces of British Columbia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward 
Island -- had entered Confederation, and before modern 
fishing practices and technologies had been developed.  The 
archaic character of the Act is most visible in the authority 
it gives to the Minister, who has "absolute discretion" to 
make decisions about and manage Canada's fisheries.  This is 
still upheld by the Canadian legal system.  Commented one DFO 
contact, "We don't lose court cases." 
 
¶3.  DFO initiated its drive to reform the Act in the late 
1990s.  Its first effort was shot down by environmental NGOs 
who insisted on the inclusion of stronger habitat provisions. 
 A second bill was preceded by several years of discussion 
between DFO officials and stakeholders, but it died last 
September when the Government prorogued Parliament.  DFO 
officials took the opportunity before resubmitting their 
draft to make changes to the text to address certain 
recurring criticisms.  The result was the present Bill C-32. 
 
--------------- 
What is Changed 
--------------- 
 
¶4.  The most fundamental change that will occur should Bill 
C-32 be passed is that the Minister will no longer have 
absolute authority in law over granting licenses, permits and 
quotas.  Stated Minister Hearn when he introduced the bill in 
Parliament, "In the 21st century it is not acceptable to have 
a system that allows politicians to determine who gets what 
fish without any type of public accountability."  (Hearn was 
overstating the case somewhat, as much of the Minister's 
current authority is delegated to various officials and 
representative bodies in somewhat transparent arrangements.) 
Licensing rules and criteria will be set out in regulations 
under the new Act.  While the Minister will continue to 
decide on access to the coastal fishery, licensing officers 
will issue or refuse individual licenses.  A newly-formed 
Canada Fisheries Tribunal will hear appeals.  The Minister 
will continue to make but in a more transparent process.  The 
feudal days of petitioning the Minister personally and 
relying on one's political associations will end (or, at 
least, be significantly reduced).  Not surprisingly, some 
well-connected individuals and firms are quietly unhappy with 
Bill C-32 for this very reason. 
 
¶5.  Concerns of environmental NGOs were addressed by wording 
that requires the Minister to consider conservation 
priorities before making licensing and allocation decisions. 
The new language directs the Minister, among other things, 
QThe new language directs the Minister, among other things, 
"to take into account" sustainable development and "to seek" 
to conserve fish and fish habitat.  This is optional 
language, according to critics, and gives the Minister too 
much leeway to pursue commercial ends over environmental.  In 
a meeting with embassy officials, Michaela Huard, DFO 
Assistant Deputy Minister for Policy, opined that many 
organizations criticizing the new legislation had not 
actually read the 122-page text of the current Fisheries Act. 
 "People aren't aware of what the law actually is now -- they 
would be shocked if they knew." 
 
¶6.  DFO is proud of new enforcement provisions found in Bill 
C-32.  Instead of relying solely on monetary fines levied by 
 
OTTAWA 00000094  002 OF 002 
 
 
a cumbersome court system, DFO will be able to punish 
transgressors through a variety of means that could include 
cutting quotas and confiscating fishing boats.  "Many of the 
big companies look at financial penalties as just another 
cost of doing business.  Taking away their quotas will really 
mean something."  Many of these sanctions will be meted out 
through a newly-formed Canada Fisheries Tribunal composed of 
GOC officials, with representation from the 
scientific/educational and fishing communities.  DFO predicts 
the speed of enforcement for fisheries violations will 
increase.  Ironically NGOs are criticizing the new 
enforcement provisions because the fines for many fishing 
license violations will be reduced.  In response, DFO points 
to the new ability to seize fishing vessels and reduce quotas. 
 
------------------- 
Legislative Process 
------------------- 
 
¶7.  The "first reading" (introduction of the bill to 
Parliament) took place on November 29th.  The Harper 
Government may refer it to committee now -- as some critics 
are urging -- or wait until after the bill's "second reading" 
to refer it to committee.  The timing of referral to 
committee will be a political decision.  Should the bill be 
referred before its second reading, committee members will 
have the ability to change the scope of the bill.  A referral 
to committee after the second reading means that members have 
agreed in principle on the purpose, intent and scope of the 
bill, and must limit themselves to technical and 
administrative changes.  Our DFO contacts predict the 
Government continue to resist pressure for a first reading 
committee referral. 
 
¶8.  There is virtually unanimous agreement that a new 
Fisheries Act is urgently needed.  While legislators will 
strive to influence the bill in ways that are favorable to 
their own provincial interests, we understand that it is 
unlikely that anyone will take specific actions that could 
endanger its passing.  More probable -- but still unlikely -- 
would be efforts from NGO representatives who could oppose 
the bill because it does not, in their view, go far 
enough....a case of the perfect being the enemy of the pretty 
good.  Barring an unforeseen early election, DFO officials 
believe that the fixed date set for national elections -- 
October 2009 -- will allow sufficient time to get the 
legislation passed. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶9.  (SBU)  Bill C-32 will have little direct effect on how 
Canada conducts business in multinational fisheries fora and 
in its bilateral dealings with the United States.  "We're 
just trying to catch up and codify what present practice is," 
said Huard.  In a sense, this is unfortunate, as it seems to 
reflect the degree of inertia imposed by entrenched interests 
and key political constituencies in Canadian fisheries 
policy.  DFO fisheries managers are still trying to live down 
their failure to anticipate and prevent the collapse of the 
Atlantic groundfish (cod) stocks in the early 1990s, and they 
continue to find it very difficult to restrict fishing quotas 
to the levels recommended by scientific advice.  This is 
particularly true on the Atlantic Coast, where the fishing 
industry continues to represent one of the main economic 
drivers in constituencies which tend to "swing" between the 
two leading political parties.  Progressive DFO policymakers 
have broad visions for asserting Canadian leadership in 
multilateral fisheries conservation and oceans management, 
but those aspirations tend to founder on domestic political 
Qbut those aspirations tend to founder on domestic political 
realities.  Given this context, we are not surprised to be 
told that the new Act is necessary, but that it may not live 
up to its advanced billing. 
 
Visit Canada,s Economy and Environment Forum at 
http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/can ada 
 
WILKINS