CCN Back Issues Vol 4 Issue 4

SM: You and your Deputy Minister, Mr. Peter Underwood, head up a working group, or committee, of provincial Fisheries Ministers and Deputy Ministers whose aim is to improve relations with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). Is the aim of the group to improve relations between DFO and provincial officials, or relations between DFO and fishermen in the provinces, or is it a little of both?

KC: It's a little bit of both, but the main thrust is to improve the communication lines and effectiveness the provinces and territories have with the federal government. We're all frustrated dealing with DFO, but we don't blame the Minister for that, – he has been excellent to work with – it's the bureaucracy. It's so big, and so difficult to work with, that it's extremely frustrating. The meeting we went to in British Columbia [a meeting of provincial and federal fisheries officials held in Victoria in September, where Colwell and his Deputy were appointed to head the working group] wasn't designed to set this group up, but, basically the provinces and territories came to a consensus at the meeting, and told DFO that this is how we wanted to proceed. They were very accommodating, and very supportive of the whole idea, once they warmed up to it. Once they did that, they thought it was a very good idea, and we have a lady from the Minister's office working very closely with us on this.

As provinces, we have a completely united approach to the difficulties we're having with DFO. And when we talk to the Minister about it, he has some of the same frustrations with the bureaucracy. There are good people in the DFO bureaucracy, but it's so difficult to get an answer, so difficult to move forward, when some-thing is really important for your province or territory.

I think we're going to make really major strides forward [with the work of this committee]. It's a real honour for me to be selected to head this committee with my Deputy, be-cause it was only my second-ever federal, provincial, and territorial ministers' meeting. So, I was very pleased.

SM: Is there not another federal-provincial meeting of Fisheries Ministers in Quebec City later this month, where you and Mr. Under-wood are going to report on your progress?

KC: Yes, in February. We've been dealing directly with the Ministers and Deputies across the country to develop this new process. So, there will be no surprises to any-body when we get there. We will again have a united front and make sure that DFO gets a very clear message on where the provinces and territories are coming from. That's really critical, because when I became Minister my problem was that there was no consensus among fishermen in Nova Scotia, and that causes a great deal of difficulty. There was no consensus among the various gear sectors, even within the same gear sectors. This has been a real problem, because when these open disputes go on in the media, it makes it ideal for DFO. They look at the situation and say, "Well, tough luck, Nova Scotia, we'll give it to New Brunswick. They aren't fighting."

So, one of my main goals was to work with the fisheries organizations to get a united front, and we've been quite successful in that so far. We had one very good meeting in Truro last summer [called "Minister's Conference ‘98," it brought together representatives from more than 50 fishing organizations] that was very, very positive, and there will be another again next month. It's only natural that there be disputes, but let's have the disputes at home, out of the papers, and get them resolved internally. Then, once we come up with a consensus, that's when we move forward. As Fisheries Minister, I'm here to represent the fishing industry, not my own opinions or the opinions of the Department. We're here to make sure the industry is going to grow and prosper in Nova Scotia, and that's the approach we're taking.

You see, when we can build consensus, then I can go back to DFO and say, "This is what my industry wants, and this is why they want it." We can speak with a very strong voice, some-thing we couldn't do in the past, because we haven't had the support of the industry, because it wasn't united.

SM: And, in the past, you haven't had that process of internal discussion to create unity?

KC: No, we haven't. And now, to further the process, we're taking it to the federal, pro-vincial, and territorial level, to make sure we have a seamless process. Sure, there will be disputes among the provinces, the territories, and the federal government that this new sys-tem won't address but, if it addresses the main issues, or at least some of them, it leaves the other differences so much easier to deal with. Then we can fight it out, if we have to, with New Brunswick, or PEI, or the feds, and come up with a positive solution for Nova Scotia. Another thing we've done, and this is very positive, is come together as Atlantic Fisheries Ministers. Yes, we have many disputes among us on things we each want for our own provinces. That's the way it will always be, and there's nothing wrong with that. But we also have many areas of common ground, and one of those common-ground areas is how we want to deal with DFO. Before we go anywhere together, we always have a meeting amongst ourselves, even if it's only by telephone, to see what common ground we have. So, we're getting united.

In the past, the way the federal government has won with the provinces, and this is quite complex, has been "divide and conquer." That is what it has done with the fishing industry, but now we're taking the "divide and conquer" away, so they are going to have to listen to us. It's going to be a long, slow, hard process, because of past history, but the real benefit of it is that it will be better for DFO. They will get rid of a lot of hassles they've had trying to deal with fisheries organizations that are all over the map, with all different ideas of how they are going to do things. And to get that down to a consensus, even if that consensus is only in South West Nova Scotia, of how they are going to do something in a particular industry, well, if we can get that consensus then, there, that's one area of the province that has a united voice on what they want to do.

And, quite honestly, at the end of the day when I'm no longer Fisheries Minister, those guys are still going to be out there trying to make a living. If we don't help them, allow them to make a living, and allow their children and grandchildren to have a living in the fishing industry, as they've had for generations, it's going to go. And it's never going to come back, so people have to realize that. There's going to have to be some give and take, they're going to have to try to do some things that are going to be best for their communities, and for their families, to make sure that they have a livelihood for themselves and their families down the road. I think a lot of people are starting to see that now. The shock of the moratorium on the groundfish is over, people are realizing that they have to really work together, because our common enemy isn't the Province of Nova Scotia and its Department of Fisheries. We're an ally. The enemy is DFO, and how they allot fish and products to small communities.

I've been meeting as regularly as I possibly can with DFO – actually, I'll be meeting with a senior DFO official later today – trying to build bridges to make sure we have a good reputation with DFO. And we're doing that, we have a very good reputation. But, at the same time, we're not going to take any abuse from DFO, we aren't going to take anything from DFO that we don't have to take from the standpoint of being legally required to do so. So, we've been a very strong voice in Ottawa, and we are going to continue to do that, to get everything we possibly can to help the Nova Scotian fishing industry.

SM: I want to come back to DFO and other federal-provincial matters, but I'd like to turn to aquaculture for a few moments. On the New Brunswick side of the Bay of Fundy, they've had huge problems, especially last summer. I read recently that problems with the ISA virus there have cost growers up to $40 million. How much finfish aquaculture is happening on our side of the Bay, and what kinds of steps are being taken to try to prevent growers here suffering in the same manner they have in New Brunswick?

KC: We're very concerned about ISA, and over the past year, ever since the issue came up in New Brunswick, our vet has taken a very pro-active role in its prevention. We have a sterilization and containment program in place in case of an outbreak. All the finfish aquaculture farms have been trained on how to handle this. We have an ongoing testing program for ISA, which was never in place before, and the tests are done routinely, all over Nova Scotia. We're continually trying to watch for these kinds of problems, because our industry, of course, is a lot lower volume than New Brunswick. The bottom line with the problem in New Brun-swick, and in Norway, where the disease was originally identified was, it appears, poor husbandry: too many fish in cages, and things not properly handled. We're on guard against that here, and the industry is very aware of it. I hope we won't have a problem with ISA, but, it's like getting a cold: how do you know that you're not, someday, going to run into it?

New Brunswick had no way to anticipate ISA but, right now, with the testing program we have, if we identify it, we have a whole system in place to try to minimize the problem. The way New Brunswick found out about it was through dead, sick fish. If they had a testing program in place before things got to that stage, they might have alleviated the whole thing. But we don't know.

SM: So, as ghoulish as it is to say, Nova Scotia aquaculture might actually benefit from the problems New Brunswick had?

KC: There's no question. We have excellent staff in the field. We have probably the best fish vet in North America right here in Nova Scotia, and we've hired a second vet now, so we have a really good, professional staff that is very concerned about things. Also, we have extremely good aquaculture operators here, both in the finfish and otherwise, really good, professional people. Aquaculture is a really good industry. We're going to hit another record this year in aqua- culture value, and it looks like next year, if nothing serious happens, we'll have another record too. So, aquaculture is really starting to grow in the province – finfish, shellfish, every-thing is starting to come together. It's very, very positive.

SM: Many fishermen would like to see the province play a larger role in representing their concerns to DFO. They'd like the province to be more vocally critical of DFO on such management regime issues as ITQs and privatization of the resource. Some provincial Fisheries Ministers, notably Mr. Efford in Newfoundland, have been publicly and harshly critical of many DFO decisions. Is it your view that quiet diplomacy can be more effective with DFO, or is it essential to go public with criticisms of DFO's management regime?

KC: I want to bring you back to what we talked about at first. The problem we've had in Nova Scotia is that we've had no united voice in the fishing industry. So, as Fisheries Minister, who do I represent, and what positions do I take? That was a critical problem that we've had in the past. Once we can gain consensus, and I think we've made a major start in that direction, then I have no objections at any time, or any concerns or qualms, about being very vocal against DFO. I've already done that, probably more than any other Fisheries Minister has done in the last decade or more, condemning DFO when I feel that their programs or their decisions are not correct, or their approach to something is not correct.

I think the best thing is a combination of being very vocal and, at times when it's appropriate, to be quiet and work through the system to make your points so that, at the end of the day, you achieve what you need to for your province. The bottom line is the goal you achieve, and to achieve the goals you need to have, Number One, the support of the industry, and, Number Two, you need to have the will of the industry to move forward. Once we've got those two things, then we can be a very potent force to deal with.

And that is where Newfoundland has an advantage. They've got one union – not that I'm proposing that Nova Scotia should have anything like that – but, they talk with one voice as an industry, one voice at the provincial level, and when they talk to Ottawa it's the same again. Here, we've got 500 voices with 2,000 different ideas, and it's not good. It's got to change. It has to change. And, once that changes, then Nova Scotia can really move forward.

SM: Have you looked at the Standing Senate Committee's report entitled Privatization and Quota Management in Canada's Fisheries?

KC: Yes, and we agree with what the Senate said. It's what we've been saying in this Department for a long, long time. We did a press release commending the Senators on the stance they've taken.

SM: DFO, through Small Craft Harbours, has been downloading responsibility for wharves and other marine infrastructure onto already over-stressed, cash-strapped communities and fishermen. Fishermen look upon their wharves and infrastructure as their "highways to the sea," and their loss can threaten the very existence of small, coastal communities. Even though this is clearly a federal jurisdiction, is there anything the province can or should do to help the small communities that are threatened by this?

KC: The only thing the province does now is a program that allows us to provide winches and boat-launches and the like. But the amount of money in that program is very, very limited. In fact, the budget for the whole Department is very small, but we get a really good bang for our buck on that small program, and it helps a lot of communities. But, as far as re-building and maintaining wharves goes, we simply cannot afford to do it. If we spent the money we have in health care in the province of Nova Scotia, which is $1.4 billion, that might fix the wharves in the province. It's that bad. It's a big and expensive proposition, so we just, physically and financially, can't do it. I don't want to lead anyone astray or create any false hopes that we can do that.

At the same time, we're lobbying Ottawa. Personally, I'm very, very concerned about this and I've talked to some of the Harbour Authorities about it. DFO, through Small Craft Harbours, is divesting itself of them because it doesn't want to spend the money to fix them. So what happens to the wharf in twenty years time? So, here's a wharf that maybe is falling down, and a big truck goes on it. And, because DFO no longer even rates the wharves, this big truck goes on, and it goes down through and somebody gets killed.

KC: It's very serious because, in the meantime, maybe the Harbour Authority has disbanded, maybe there's no longer any liability insurance, but the last members who were in charge may still be responsible, personally.

KC: Yes, because of their signatures to the agreement that turned the wharf over to the Harbour Authority. So, it's a very serious concern. On the other hand, if you get a Harbour Authority in a community that works well, maybe in conjunction with some fisheries organization, or whoever, I think it can work well, so long as they keep the wharf fixed up all the time, keep it up all the time, and make sure they get it inspected properly by qualified people. But they have to collect the money from people using the wharf, and not let it slide. Because, the minute it slides, they're in trouble.

It's not any longer the situation as it was in the past where you had your little wharf in front of your fish shack that you built for $5,000 twenty years ago, cutting the logs yourself and that sort of thing. No, this is big trouble, and a big expense. I mean, some of these wharves cost several million dollars to fix, or even to remove. So, once DFO's gone, and then the federal or provincial Environment Department comes along and says the wharf has to be removed, who pays? And now, under the provincial Environment Act, if you're a shareholder in a company or on the Board of Directors, you're personally responsible, criminally and financially.

So, this is a very, very serious situation that I'm very concerned about. We need the wharves for the fishermen, no question about that. I think, in certain circumstances, the Harbour Authorities will work well, especially if it's a wharf that's in good condition now, and they really keep it in good shape, just as the fishermen do with their vessels. But if they slide, then they're going to be in trouble, and it's not trouble that will go away. It could show up in five, ten, or twenty years time, or it could be longer.

I think what DFO will do is just come in and demolish the wharf, clean up, and then be gone and done with it. So that's not an alternative. I don't really know what the alternative is. We've been lobbying DFO on this issue, but the feds just say, "No, we're not going to spend any extensive money on them," although they still have a program in there, at the present time anyway, to put some money back into the good Harbour Authorities.

SM: Some of the frustration seems to be coming from the fact that, to DFO, a wharf is a wharf is a wharf. But the reality is that a wharf along the Atlantic coast is a completely different kettle of fish, in terms of maintenance and the like, from a wharf along the Bay of Fundy, with its huge tides...

KC: Definitely, and even in the construction. It's a serious problem. There's another thing I'd like to talk about, not on wharves, and this is a question I asked the Minister, the Deputy Minister, and the Assistant Deputy Ministers [of DFO] at the last meeting we had in Victoria. And this is some-thing I want you to print. This is a very, very important question for the fishermen, and I haven't yet got the written answer from them. Here's the scenario: the federal government presently is under a buy-back program for licences, and there's also a moratorium on fishing. So, therefore, if you have a groundfish licence and you decide to go for the buy-out, that's fine, and then you're out of the industry. If maybe some people don't go for the buy-out – and I'm not proposing that anyone go for the buy-out or not, this is a personal decision people have to make – and they say, "Okay, we're going to wait it out until the groundfish come back, then we're going to go back into the industry and work as we have for generations." That's fine, if I was a fisherman, I would probably look at that option quite seriously, depending on my personal situation.

But, as far as I understand it, you're only allowed to "bank" your licence – in other words, not fish with it, have no landings – for two years. If you don't fish your licence, you lose your licence. So, my question to DFO, which I haven't got answered yet, was this: It's more than two years since the moratorium, so a lot of these boats haven't landed any fish, can't legally land any fish. So, the "holiday" for the licence is gone. (Even if they go out now, they don't have any catch history for the past few years.) So, you don't take the buy-out, and then the industry comes back. So then you come back, after struggling for years, kept your licence, and then DFO says, "Where's your catch history?" Then you say, "I don't have any because of the moratorium." Then DFO can say, "It doesn't matter, you didn't catch any fish. Your licence is cancelled." And I think that's what they're going to do.

It's scary. I'm still waiting to get an answer back. I asked them that question directly, that question in that way. Their response at the time was to sort of deny any knowledge about bank- ing of licences. They didn't know anything about that stuff. Now, I can't imagine that senior DFO staff, the Deputy Minister and Assistant Deputy Ministers, don't know that! Those are the guys who write the rules. So, that's scary, because what can happen is DFO will come back and say to the fishermen, "Well, twice, you didn't take the buy-out, you've got no history, you've got no licence." And that's what's going to happen, and they'll do it one at a time. They'll open an area up for codfish, come into an area with maybe 50 fishermen, and maybe five of them have a history, for whatever reason. The rest of them don't, so five have licences and 45 won't. That'll be it!

SM: There's been a lot of frustration with the post-TAGS buy-out regulations, and with DFO over its "consultation" process, but the way you've laid things out is...

KC: People haven't realized this. They just have to look at the history of the policies of DFO. That's been their policy: "If you don't use it, you lose it." I've got fishermen in my area, I told them years ago when I was manufacturing and selling fishing gear, I said, "Get out and sell fish." And they didn't bother. They lost their licences and they're gone. And this was when the fish were there to catch. So, I don't know how we're going to resolve this, but I'm pressing DFO because I want a written reply from them.

KC: It certainly will be, because it's not only going to be for Nova Scotia, it'll be the whole country. My real fear is that I won't get any answer from them. If we can get an answer one way or the other, then we can start doing something about it, but if we don't get an answer then we're worse off.

SM: The longer you wait without getting an answer the more worrisome it is...

KC: Yes, it is. You see, my whole philosophy in the fishing industry is that people have a right to make a living. That living may be different in different parts of the province, and different for different people, but that's their choice. They deserve the right to have that choice. It shouldn't be a Fisheries Department that decides for them, federally or provincially. If a man wants to go out there and work hard, put his children through university, and do all the things that a family wants to do, he should have the ability to do that in the industry, within certain necessary rules and regulations. And that's where I come from on all these issues. Everything else to me is secondary, because if you satisfy that one important goal, that people can work and make a living in what they've done traditionally while conserving for the future, then we've done everything.

SM: Then the future of communities would be assured, if we could get to that point?

KC: That's right, and we will get there, but we're not there now. We should have been there twenty years ago, and we could have done it, I think, if we had changed things a little bit. Of course, now, it's easy to say that, but we could have done it if we'd used the principle that people have a right to work and to make a reasonable living for their families. Some families might only need, say, $30,000 a year to have a very good life, and do all the things their family wants to do. Another family might need $70,000 a year, depending where they live, the number of kids, and on their situation. But, whatever, the opportunity should be there for them. This is the thing that we really have to start looking at. We have to look at things that allow people to fish year-round, in different species – maybe a little bit here, a little bit there – so they don't have to go on EI, because Human Resources wants to get fishermen off EI. That's why they want a total buy-out on the licences, I think. It has nothing to do with the fishery, it's EI.

SM: Yes, there seems to be a common feeling that all these licence buy-backs are seemingly based on the notion that there are too many fishermen chasing too few fish, but the real problem of catch capacity is not being addressed by DFO, even now...

KC: Yes, every time they take one person out of the system, it's one less EI cheque they've got to give for the fishery. So, I think that's part of the problem. Of course, they don't say that. If they would just out and tell people the real story, what they're really trying to accomplish – of course, it would probably almost cause a civil war – and if they had really helped people get into other professions, like they were supposed to under TAGs and didn't do, we wouldn't have this problem now.

SM: Your Department has recently stepped up efforts to reduce the trade in illegally caught lobsters, and there have been some notable successes. As the efforts become more intense, are the punishments that are being given to the offenders enough to act as a deterrent to others?

KC: When Minister Anderson was in this office we discussed this problem, and as a result of that discussion I asked that we put a task force together among DFO, provincial Fisheries, provincial and federal Justice, and the RCMP. He replied positively. This is a criminal activity and as far as I'm concerned the penalties can never be hard enough, because what these people are doing is stealing people's livelihoods. That's what's happening. We are now in the process of making things even tougher. We're going to get to the point on this, very shortly, where we won't have anywhere else to go with what we can do. When we bring all these groups together, there's a couple of things that are going to happen. I had a brief discussion with the Chief Superintendent of the RCMP for the province, and he has offered some things to us that I never thought the RCMP would. So they're very keenly interested in this. Revenue Canada is also extremely interested in this, because if they can identify these people, then they can do a net- worth audit on them and really hit them over the head, make it tougher than even putting them in jail, realistically.\

As well, we've authorized all the federal DFO officers to enforce the provincial regulations, so they can go anywhere now, without interruption. We're taking further steps within this Department that I can't discuss yet because we're still working on them, but in a couple months time we're going to have those in place. We're going to make it impossible.

Once a lobster hits the land, it's provincial, when it's in the water, it's federal. So there's a natural overlap, but the over-lap will be wiped out, and it won't matter where you are. We're even going to be able to find a restaurant, if they have illegal lobsters. And not only lobsters, we're going after any fisheries products, and we're going to try to put an end to the whole thing. And we have to, I mean we have no choice. We've gone to Crimestoppers, a really good organization, and got them involved: for a small amount of money we can get a tremendous amount of information. I'm not prepared to give you any information on what we've collected yet, but it will become obvious in the days to come. We're really making progress in this area, and we'll be all geared up for next spring and summer, when the activities start at full strength again.

SM: The lobster fishery is the province's most lucrative in dollar value. It's managed in the old- fashioned way and appears to work. I've talked with some lobster fishermen who fear that DFO is going to come in and try to implement an ITQ-type management regime in the lobster fishery. Have you heard anything along these lines?

KC: I haven't heard anything. It would be a total disaster if they did it. Our Department, I can tell you right now, on the record, if they even proposed that, we're going to be bitterly, bitterly, opposed to it. And we'll make no bones about it, because it's not working now in the other sectors, and the people who know what's really going on know it's not working. We don't want it in the lobster industry. I mean, in the lobster industry, besides the illegal fishing and other things with people not following the rules, the system works very well. Year after year, the catches are reasonably constant, prices are going up steadily, so lobster fishermen now have the opportunity to make themselves a good living. So, why mess with something that's working properly? When we take the illegal activity out of it, I think we have a long-term, sustainable industry.

SM: Native logging has been in the news lately, and, in some areas, the native food fishery has caused tensions between Native and non-Native fish harvesters. While this is a completely federal jurisdiction, is there anything the province can do to help reduce tensions?

KC: At my Minister's Conference [held in Truro last August] we had people from the Native community come, and it was very, very good. We're going to continue to work with the Native community to make sure that the interests of Nova Scotia, the fishing industry as we know it, and the Native community, are addressed, on a united front. We've had some meetings, but we need to have further discussions with the Native community.

The Native community is very involved with the seal harvest, and we're extremely pleased with that, because that's an industry that they are probably more familiar with than anyone else. Their expertise is really appreciated, and their approach to things is excellent. It looks very positive. On the level of the provincial Department of Fisheries, we haven't had any serious problems with the Native community.

SM: There are a number of people around the province who work for your Department as "Fisheries reps." What exactly do they do, and how is the system of Fisheries reps working?

KC: It's working very well, as far as we're concerned. Fisheries reps are our eyes and ears, and our representatives in the local communities. It's a person who lives in the community and knows the industry. The idea of it is that a fisherman can go up and talk to a Fisheries rep with a problem they've got, in confidence, and say, "Look, this is going on. Can you help us with it?" It also puts fishermen in direct touch with any program the provincial government has, through the Fisheries Department or any other Department. So, a local fisherman, although they may be in Yarmouth or Louisbourg, has direct access to our Department through a person they can stand on the wharf with and talk to, to get the information they need. And if the rep doesn't have the information, they can get it for them quickly. It's through the reps that we get our applications for derricks and winches and such for the wharves.

Fish reps also help with the Loan Board, keep an eye on vessels, and let us know who is doing what in the community. And they aren't enforcement people, they're people there just to work with the community and to ensure that the fishermen and the fishing industry are represented and have a good, strong voice. They're a good group of people.

SM: Does the province have a position on the Marine Protected Areas envisioned under the new Oceans Act?

KC: Yes we do. We're still dealing with DFO on this, and with the provincial Environment Department. We have some concerns, but nothing that they haven't addressed so far. I think it's a good idea to have these Marine Protected Areas, as long as we can continue the traditional fishery that has been there all along.

SM: Some people have raised the concern that too much of the ocean is being leased to oil companies for exploration. An area equal to about 40 percent of the province's land mass is on the auction block for exploration rights. Is it too much, or does it represent a potential threat to the fishery?

KC: No, I don't think so, as long as the oil industry works closely with the fishing industry. Actually, I met with some people from the fishing industry, and we made arrangements for them to go on a committee to make sure that the concerns of the fishery are addressed as exploration moves forward, and to make sure that any conflict is resolved. The people in the industry I've talked to locally are very pleased about that approach. And I'm sure that those in the oil industry are pleased too, because the last thing either industry wants is a conflict with the other. Now, I'm sure that someday there are going to be conflicts that can't be easily re-solved but, to date, there's just been some minor things that have been an irritant more than anything else. I think that if we get the fishing industry working closely together that we will have a good, strong voice in that area to make sure that their concerns are known.

SM: Has the province taken a position on the extension, or the end, of the moratorium on exploration on George's Bank?

KC: I wrote a letter to all the fisheries organizations earlier this week asking them to go make presentations to the group the federal government has put in place to look into this. The question here is, what does the fishing industry want and how do we want it handled? So, they have to go themselves and start making these presentations, but make sure that they are united when they do it. They should say what they want and how they want it to happen. It's a difficult situation for the industry because we want to make sure that we protect our fishing grounds.

SM: The Coastal Communities Network appreciates you taking the time to talk to us. In closing, is there anything our organization can do to make your job easier?

KC: Well, I'm happy to take the time. The Coastal Communities Network does important work. And, yes, there is something you can do, and I'll take you back again to what I said earlier. The fishing industry really has to build consensus on a whole range of issues. Anything you people can do to that end will both make my job easier and add much strength to the industry in its efforts to get policy changes made.

What's Come to Pass

On December 1, 1997, the new toll highway through the Cobequid Pass in northern Nova Scotia officially opened. Within hours it was closed, as high winds and drifting snow made it impossible for trucks to climb its steep grades. Some travellers were stranded in snowdrifts for as much as twelve hours. Long-time residents of the area, though sorry for the predicament of hapless drivers, weren't slow to remark, "Told you so."

Indeed they had, in December, 1992, during four days of environmental hearings at the Great Village Masonic Hall. People who had spent their whole lives in the area warned of the extreme weather hazards and safety concerns related to the proposed western route through remote wilderness. At the same time, business and community leaders begged that the highway be routed closer to the North Shore villages of Tatamagouche, Malagash, Wallace, and Pugwash, where it could actually bring benefits to human settlements ("Isn't that what ‘infrastructure' means?" they asked), instead of simply being a nuisance to moose in the Cobequid Mountains.

But the only ones to get a real hearing were the proponents of "public-private partnership," and they urged the government to give responsibility for construction and operation of the highway to the private sector. Atlantic Highways Corporation, the consortium chosen to build the road, bulldozed through local wisdom, and soon Nova Scotia could brag of being the only Canadian province with a cover charge: toll booths on the Trans-Canada Highway.

In its first year of operation, the toll road has become known locally as the "Cobequid Impasse," thanks to numerous closures for storms, and for repairs to crumbling pavement. Mercifully, there have been no fatal accidents thus far, but truckers, compelled by law to take the route and pay the toll, are not happy. In order to capture more toll-booth income, Atlantic Highways persuaded the province to ban trucks from the old highway. Now, there's even talk of a private police force to patrol the Wentworth Valley and nab truckers who try to sneak by on the old road.

Now that the dust has had a year to settle, what has been the impact on communities in this part of Nova Scotia? Certainly, people in Amherst feel disconnected from the rest of the province, but it's the small rural and coastal communities of the North Shore that are really struggling for survival.

The new highway is a mixed blessing, according to Cathy Redmond, who lives on the edge of the old road through Wentworth. Her children can now wait without fear for the school bus at the end of the driveway, and the sudden quiet is a delight to Cathy: "For the first time in twenty years of living here," she says, "I can get up in the morning and hear the birds singing."

But it's much too quiet for business owners along the former main road to Montr&#eacute;al. Many enterprises have packed it in. The Lady Went-worth Irving station and restaurant left a huge gap in the local economy when it closed, taking away 38 jobs. Several of the staff were able to find work at another Irving in Enfield, but it's a long way to commute. Cathy Redmond worries that some families will eventually have to move away, and, if the number of students attending the local school drops much lower, it could be closed.

There's only one grocery store left in Went-worth, and the community had to fight to keep a single bus running through the Valley daily. Redmond's latest battle is with the provincial Department of Transportation, whose peculiar logic has dictated the lowering of the speed limit to a snail's-pace 70 km/h on a highway that is now virtually deserted: it was 90 km/h when traffic was at full roar. Safety is clearly not the issue here: rather, it's a secret deal the province made with Atlantic Highways that guarantees at least a 30-km/h difference between the new route and the old, thus further discouraging people from taking the old, toll-free route. Redmond suspects that a similar motive is behind a frustrating lack of clear signage that would direct tourists through the Wentworth Valley, and to North Shore destinations: "People have gone by before they know it," she laments.

Closer to Truro is the Glenholme Loop, where business owners are still hoping to develop a promised major service and rest centre. Even before the toll road opened, Gary Staples announced that he would be shutting down his restaurant and Esso station because he expected traffic to disappear. He later reconsidered on the gas station and is now seeing a slow recovery, especially on stormy days when trucks huddle at his station. (The Cobequid Pass has no rest area or safe pull-over areas on its entire 45-kilometre length.) But the Irving station across the road from Staples' operation has vanished, and the lot has been grassed over.

The Millens, who run a farm market called The Strawberry Man, calculate that their trade was down 30 to 40 percent last year. Mrs. Millen says signs on the new road confuse people who don't know the area and can't figure out where to get off. This problem has turned into a boon for the Masstown Market, which is right at the end of the off-ramp at Exit 12: baffled tourists stop to ask directions, then stay to buy something. Marketeer Eric Jennings has offered to donate land on his corner for a proposed Visitor Information Centre, if the province will help build it.

Signage has also been the big issue for Gerald Langille and his neighbours over in Wallace. A Cumberland County councillor, Langille relates incidents ranging from disappointing to potentially tragic over the past year, as he has struggled to secure even one sign bearing his community's name somewhere on the highway. "People have missed funerals because they can't find the turn-off," he notes ruefully. Of greater concern are health risks. One night, an oxygen unit urgently needed in Wallace was to come from the Annapolis Valley: it wound up in Thompson Station, at the far end of the toll road. (Luckily, the delay wasn't fatal for an elderly Wallace woman.) In mid-January, Langille received word from the Department of Transportation that new signs have been approved. It's the first piece of good news for Wallace after a lean year, and residents hope some of the missing tourism traffic will find its way back.

Another North Shore village, Tatamagouche, has also been suffering tourism withdrawal symptoms. While the province was boasting of big gains in tourism numbers last summer, North Shore motels and gift shops were experiencing a general decline. James Le-fresne, who runs the unique Train Station Inn in Tatamagouche (imagine a caboose with a Jacuzzi!), blames the combination of the new toll highway and the fixed link to Prince Edward Island. Traffic in both directions is diverted from the communities of the North Shore.

George Buckler, who chairs the Tatamagouche Village Commission, reckons that there's too much traffic, of the wrong sort, on the village's narrow, friendly main street. Too many big trucks are taking the Sunrise Trail, avoiding the tolls and leaving potholes behind, Buckler contends.

Hans Jost, who makes international-prize-winning wines in nearby Malagash, reports that out-of-province visitors who make it to his vineyard are definitely not coming off the toll highway. Unless they know the territory and are crafty enough to get on the Sunrise Trail at Amherst, they miss the exit that could have landed them at Jost's door. Another concern of Jost's is that now his business is even farther away from an all-weather high-way: weight restrictions mean he has to ship out his trucks half-empty.

For people on the North Shore, the toll road has meant opportunities missed. Much might have been accomplished if they had managed to convince government to take a serious look at the potential described in a $12,000 study paid for by the communities themselves in 1991, but it seems that, even then, the decision had al-ready been made. Still, spirited people in Tatamagouche did not give up. Instead, they em-barked on a number of projects aimed at self- sufficiency. Theda Boyce of the North Shore Development Association reports that enterprising folks, having been denied four lanes of pavement, decided instead to get on the information highway and make the world come to them. The thriving Smart Rural Communities program is attracting cyber-business, as well as spin-off benefits. Perhaps they'll invent a way to get the tourists back too.

Meanwhile, back on Westchester Mountain, the village closest to the toll highway is stressed by too much business. The 23 members of the Westchester Volunteer Fire Department have been called out to accidents on the Cobequid Pass sixteen times in the past year, and the tiny community simply can't afford to maintain this pace. Fire Chief Avard Bentley points out that there are many costs involved, including losses at the local lumber mill, which has to shut down every time there's an accident call, because three-quarters of its workers are also volunteer firefighters. Atlantic Highways, which is profiting from the toll road, has never answered the brigade's appeals for reimbursement.

Chief Avard Bentley doesn't think local people should be expected to subsidize a money- making highway. Nor should any of us: we are all paying for it, whether or not we personally drop three dollars at the toll booth. We are all paying more for imported goods and groceries, as trucking companies pass along their extra costs to the consumer. And all Nova Scotians pay when governments make deals with private enterprise that work against the survival of rural communities.

School teacher Janet Maybee lives in Glenholme. She can be contacted through the Editor of this magazine.

Building a Better Democracy

But perhaps the most innovative theatre organization in the province is the Irondale Ensemble Project. The first thing that gives away the fact that this is no ordinary theatre group is the location of its office: it's in the basement of a public school in Halifax. This connection underlines the importance of education to Irondale's understanding of what theatre can and should be: a means to gain a greater understanding of the way the world works, and a tool that can be used to show ordinary people that they can become a part of changing it. And, although its home base is Halifax, over the past several years Irondale performers have spent a lot of time in the province's rural and coastal communities.

Irondale's first project involving one of Nova Scotia's small communities took place in 1993. "We went down to Sheet Harbour," explains, Stephen Cross, who founded the group in 1990, "to try to learn more about the fisheries down-turn from the people most directly affected by it." In exchange, Irondale offered to lead a community development project that would explore why the Eastern Shore had long been seen as a "have-not" part of the province.

"People in Sheet Harbour told us their stories about how the fishery crisis was affecting them," remembers Cross. "They told us things we weren't hearing in the media, because media people like to go into a community, do their sound bite, and get out quickly. But the fisheries issues that people were talking about were more complex than that."

The Irondale group spent several weekends in Sheet Harbour learning about the fisheries crisis from local people and also helping about 40 area residents put together a play called The Mystery on the Eastern Shore, which explored issues of local under-development. "We went down to Sheet Harbour and spent the weekends there, staying in people's homes," recalls Cross. "We weren't getting paid, just our gas money, really, and that gave us some credibility in the community. We got about 70 people together in the community hall down there. We didn't have any agenda, we just asked people to tell us their stories, and they did. We all worked together to express those stories in popular theatre. So, really, the fisheries play we put together was a gift from the people of Sheet Harbour."

That play was called The Leaning Tower/The Golden Key, and it brought Sheet Harbour's story to audiences in communities across the province. "You see, The Leaning Tower was a favourite story of Father Moses Coady, " explains Cross. "The ‘tower' he was talking about started when this part of the country was first being settled, when everybody was working hard to clear the land and build up communities. But, all over the province – in every community – there was always one man who decided to become the community merchant, to supply the tea, the flour, and everything else people needed. Coady's ‘tower' started leaning the day that the very first customer came into the merchant's store and asked him how much an axe handle would cost him. The merchant said ‘Three dollars,' and the customer reached into his pocket and gave it to him.

"That's when the first stone at the base of Coady's tower started to lean," continues Cross, "and as the economy became more and more complex, the tower grew so high, and leaned at such an angle, that we, as a society, have had to build props to keep it from falling over – things like Employment Insurance, pensions, and the like. But the problem began when that first customer reached into his pocket and handed over the three dollars without any question. There was an opportunity there, but the consumer gave away his right. The customers could have gotten together and said to the merchant, ‘So, you want to be our merchant, that's fine. But we're not going to let you run the whole show and set prices by yourself. Sure, you can manage the store if you want, but we're going to operate this thing for everyone's benefit, not just yours. We're going to work out fair prices by cooperating together for the common good.'

"Coady often talked about this tower," continues Cross. "He said that instead of spending so much energy propping it up, that we should cooperate with one another to build a brand new tower, one that will be straight."

The second part of the play's title, The Golden Key , is the name of a story in Grimm's Fairy Tales. "It's all about empowerment," says Cross. "Its message is that the box we call life is full of wonderful things, but that it's up to each of us to seek the knowledge that is the key to opening up the box. It suggests that we live in an environment of insanity, that political decisions get made for crazy reasons – toeing the party line, serving various interest groups, and the like. It's actually insane, but unless we learn to question the basics, we all think it's sane and normal."

Unlike much traditional theatre, Irondale productions are often a two-way street, with performances followed by inter-action between the players and their audience. For example, performances of The Mystery of the Eastern Shore in a number of fishing communities across the province were followed by community forums and meetings, and these often led to other theatre projects in those communities. Irondale has organized community theatre workshops in Digby and Pictou Counties, on the South Shore, in Halifax, and elsewhere. "When people in communities learn theatre skills," explains Cross, "they can use those skills to take a fresh look at those who make the decisions that affect those communities. The point isn't to cast blame on anyone, but to educate, because with education comes literacy, and with that comes the ability to build a better democracy."

Irondale has also used theatre to explore a number of other issues and communities. One Irondale project involved community health issues, while another was centred in New Glasgow, where the focus was on conflict resolution, both among young people themselves and among different generations. Young and old alike developed peace-making skills, and performances were staged for junior high schools and community groups. Irondale performers have also teamed up with new Canadians to develop theatre and workshops dealing with issues that arise when people from other cultures settle in Canada. This has helped both new and established Canadians gain a better understanding of one another. In 1996, troupe members were able to travel to Fiji and Vanuatu in the South Pacific to teach community groups and local actors about Irondale's strategies for using theatre as an educational tool, and about how those strategies can be adapted to local conditions. And, the group has developed a play about bias – both perceived and real – in the judicial system and performed it before groups of judges and legal experts.

This year, Irondale has a number of projects on the go. Gentle Ways Are Best uses fables, songs, dances, and clowning to underline for elementary schools the message that "there is value in peaceful living, and beauty in life's simple gifts." Sewergate combines theatre and video to tell the story of a Dartmouth developer and his struggle with bureaucracy. But Iron-dale's biggest project at the moment involves, once again, the Antigonish Movement. The Good Society tells the story of the Movement's two founders, Father Moses Coady and Father Jimmy Tompkins. Both were radical priests who early this century insisted that democracy meant that everyone had an obligation, and a right, to take part in all aspects of daily life, beginning with cooperative economic decision making.

But the pair also had many fundamental differences. Coady's vision was one of large groups of people working together, which required management and strategic planning. Tompkins, in contrast, despised anything that was institutional or "top-down," and argued that "organization leads to domination." The play uses drama and music to present these two figures at key moments in the development of both the Antigonish Movement and their own lives and thought processes. "The work," says Stephen Cross, "challenges the theatre-goer to consider their own role in the class war for justice, to make a conscious decision about their own level of participation in the real drama of democracy in Canada, and to consider what is needed to learn our way toward the good society."

Irondale is positive proof that live, innovative theatre in Nova Scotia can reach out to communities, that it can work to educate people about the realities of daily life, and that it can help people to explore avenues that lead toward positive change. Bravo!

If you wish to contact Irondale about coming to your community, simply call their Halifax office at 429-1370. Irondale's current season will conclude with a festival of popular theatre and workshops in Halifax reflecting its work in communities across the province. Titled The People's Theatre Festival, it will take place in Halifax between June 2-6. For more information, call the Irondale office.

"Quacks Like a Duck"

The Committee heard evidence from almost 60 people, most representing groups affected by DFO's fisheries management practices, some speaking simply as individuals with a particular interest in the fisheries. Among those who appeared before the Committee was Arthur Bull , who spoke on behalf of the Coastal Communities Network. Most of the report is taken up by more than 50 pages of careful examination of the many complex issues surrounding DFO's implementation of Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) and Enterprise Allocations (EAs) over the past several years, as well as an exploration of the history of ITQs and their effect on fisheries in Iceland, New Zealand, and the United States. Its five-page conclusion is followed by ten specific recommendations, and neither the conclusion nor the recommendations reflect well on DFO's fisheries management policies. The report concludes that:

Time and time again over the past decade, this Committee has heard that many participants in the small-vessel sectors believe that government and policy-makers have had a hidden agenda favouring property rights-based fisheries [that is, ITQs and EAs]. The perception of these participants is that proprietary rights are being imposed on them. Their trepidation and apprehension would appear to be justified...

In Canada, the privatization of fishing rights, which began in the early 1980's, has very much been a bureaucratic initiative. The process has taken place gradually over several years and under several ministers of fisheries... New powers are now being proposed for the Fisheries Act to allow the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to enter into long-term, legally binding "partnership agreements"... Proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act introduced in the last Parliament (Bill C-62) included provisions on fisheries management agreements designed to abrogate a fundamental public right to the fishery that has existed in the common law since the signing of the Magna Carta. Under the Constitution Act, 1867, which incorporated British constitutional practices and common law into Canadian law, it is only with the express sanction of Parliament that the so-called "public right to fish" can be displaced... We believe the views of Canadians should be heard before legislation similar to Bill C-62 is reintroduced in this Parliament.

Lastly, the discussion over individual quotas has thus far been confined to academic circles, government officials, those who speak on behalf of the fishing industry, and certain newspaper columnists and editorialists. The Canadian public should be made more aware of the matter. Taxpayers, in particular, should be wary of trite clich&#eacute;s and the rhetorical claims of the more zealous proponents of privatized fisheries. In the end, it is the taxpayer who will have to foot the bill if small fishing communities are left high and dry.

One of the tactics of those "zealous" proponents of privatization is to claim that, in fact, private quotas are not private property at all. One of the central arguments in this claim is that because ITQs and EAs – which can be bought and sold for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars – are not, technically, granted permanently, and so they don't, in a legal sense, constitute property. CCN's Arthur Bull responded to this argument when he appeared before the Committee: "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. In the opinion of coastal communities, we are talking about property." The Committee appears to agree: it points out that in a recent DFO press release, ITQs were twice referred to as "permanent," and concludes with the common-sense statement, "Quota Licences are usually perceived by their owners as private property." The Committee ended its report with the following ten recommendations to Ottawa:

Peter Stoffer agrees. He is the Member of Parliament for the riding of Sackville- Eastern Shore and the federal NDP's Fisheries critic, and what he sees in the report is remarkably similar to voices like Theriault's that he has been hearing in small fishing communities saying for quite some time. In a recent letter to a Halifax paper, he wrote: "The government has been quietly implementing a policy that is in the process of corporatizing the fishery, and it hopes no one will notice. They've also done it without consulting people in coastal communities and ordinary people." When asked about the report by this publication, Stoffer added, "The Senators who put together this report, Senator Comeau, Senator Peggy Butts, and the others, have done fabulous work. They have produced an outstanding and thorough analysis of privatization in the fisheries. It is an extremely valuable document, one the government should not ignore." (Efforts to solicit a response to the report from the federal Liberal and Progressive Conservative parties were unsuccessful.)

According to the rules that govern our federal bureaucracy, whenever a Senate or Commons Standing Committee issues a public report that makes recommendations to the federal government, Ottawa has up to 150 days to make a public response. Typically, the response will come only at the very end of the allowed time. The Senate Committee's report was issued on December 8, 1998. Some calendar-flipping and rough calculation reveals that on Friday, May 7, 1999, DFO will have a great deal of explaining to do: circle that date on your calendar .

Coastal Communities News is published bi-monthly by the Coastal Communities Network, a non-profit society registered in the province of Nova Scotia.

Coastal Communities News is made possible by the generous efforts of many volunteers, and by financial contributions from Human Resources Development Canada, and by donations and in-kind contributions from the Nova Scotia Department of Education and Culture, as well as from member groups and organizations.

We welcome all articles and submissions, from individuals and groups, with content in keeping with the role and nature of this magazine. We reserve the right to edit all submissions. Except where additional credit has been given, all articles are prepared by the Editor and Editorial Board.

Our Mission Statement

The Coastal Communities Network is a volunteer association of organizations whose mission is to provide a forum to encourage dialogue, share information, and create strategies and actions that promote the survival and development of Nova Scotia's coastal and rural communities.

"A Large Voice for Small Communities"

CCN is made up of organizations rooted in Nova Scotia's coastal and rural communities, and it is the diversity of its membership that gives it strength. Your organization, and your community, can help CCN determine its direction and strengthen its voice still further. Join the Coastal Communities Network today.

— by participating in regular monthly meetings of the CCN membership. These are held in Truro (usually on the first Tuesday of each month), and allow representatives from member organizations to review what is happening in coastal communities across the province, plan actions on issues of common concern, and review progress on CCN-sponsored projects;

— by getting on our mailing list to receive regular copies of Coastal Communities News. Send us your name and address by mail or fax, or call us directly;

— by contributing written articles to Coastal Communities News, and so letting everyone know what's happening in your community;

— by taking part in CCN workshops and information sessions. Special events like this are held on topics of importance to coastal communities (for example, community economic development, co- management in the fishery, etc);

— by inquiring about CCN's resource library, which includes information, reports, and studies on topics that affect the future and sustainability of coastal communities.

CCN Coordinator:
PO Box 1613
Pictou, N.S. B0K 1H0
Phone:(902)485-4754 Fax:(902)445-7134
e-mail:coastalnet@ns.sympatico.ca

CCN Communications Office:
Phone: (902) 445-7168
Fax: (902) 445-7134
e-mail:ccnews@ns.sympatico.ca

In Conversation With Keith Colwell

What's Come to Pass

Building a Better Democracy

"Quacks Like a Duck"

Coastal Communities News

Join the Coastal Communities Network

Our Mission Statement

"A Large Voice for Small Communities"

How to Become Involved
in the Coastal Communities Network

In Conversation With Keith Colwell

What's Come to Pass

Building a Better Democracy

"Quacks Like a Duck"

Coastal Communities News

Join the Coastal Communities Network

Our Mission Statement

"A Large Voice for Small Communities"

How to Become Involved in the Coastal Communities Network

How to Become Involved
in the Coastal Communities Network