PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Speaker: Hon. Francis (Buck) Watts
Published by Order of the Legislature
Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Fisheries
DATE OF HEARING: 4 MARCH 2016
MEETING STATUS: Public
LOCATION: COMMITTEE ROOM, J. ANGUS MACLEAN BUILDING, CHARLOTTETOWN
SUBJECT: BRIEFINGS ON SHELLFISH INDUSTRY, AND OFF-ROAD VEHICLES RE: AGRICULTURAL FIELDS
COMMITTEE:
Pat Murphy, MLA Alberton-Roseville [Chair]
Dr. Peter Bevan-Baker, Leader of the Third Party, MLA Kellys Cross-Cumberland
Bush Dumville, MLA West Royalty-Springvale
Sonny Gallant, MLA Evangeline-Miscouche
Colin LaVie, MLA Souris-Elmira
Hal Perry, MLA Tignish-Palmer Road
Brad Trivers, MLA Rustico-Emerald
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
none
MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE:
none
GUESTS:
PEI Shellfish Association (Brenda Campbell; James Wagner); Randy Pitre
STAFF:
Ryan Reddin, Clerk Assistant
Edited by Parliamentary Publications and Services
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
The Committee met at 10:00 a.m.
We’ve remained productive on this Island
for 150 years. We use the same traditional
methods of our ancestors using handheld
tongs with the oysters. We still go out and
dig a clam the same as you would going
down to the shore years ago for a feed or
whatever. It’s the same traditional methods
used. Our Island waters produce the best
shellfish in the world and we’ve never been
challenged on that, and until somebody
proves us otherwise we’ll stick to that one.
Chair (Murphy): I’ll call the meeting to
order.
I’ll welcome you all here today. The first
thing we need I guess is an adoption of the
agenda. Any additions or deletions?
Mr. Dumville: So moved.
Chair: So moved by Mr. Dumville.
The wild public shellfishery on Prince
Edward Island is oyster, soft-shell clams, bar
clams, and quahogs. Our shellfishery
supplies 75% to 80% of all adult oysters
going to market in this province; 100% of
the clams and quahogs. There are
estimations out there that it’s 60-40, 70-30.
But the last documented – and that’s what
we rely on is documentation – is 75% to
80% when you buy a – if you buy a feed or a
hundred-count of cultured oysters, 75% of
that box came from the public fishery.
We have before us today the PEI Shellfish
Association who is going to do a
presentation. Welcome, James and Brenda.
Before you speak if you just say your name
for the record. I guess what we’re going to
do is the presentation is going to be in
sections so after each section we can ask
questions then.
Brenda Campbell: Just to keep everybody
on topic. Sometimes –
James Wagner: No, it did not.
Chair: People stray off topic. Yeah, we
have a few of them around the table here
that might do that.
Brenda Campbell: Seventy five to eighty.
James Wagner: Not when you buy
cultured.
Brenda Campbell: Yes, and I’m hoping
you as Chair will – you can direct that to me
too because sometimes I can rattle on pretty
good.
Brenda Campbell: Yes, it is dear.
James Wagner: Okay.
Chair: Okay, you can go ahead with your
presentation.
Brenda Campbell: The PEI Shellfish
Association has been the voice for the wild
shellfishery industry since 1970.
Brenda Campbell: Brenda Campbell,
president of the PEI Shellfish Association.
The history of our oyster industry in Prince
Edward Island is a fascinating story of
overcoming adversity and using disaster as
sometimes a springboard to a prosperous
and reliable future. The lengths to which
people who are involved and have been
involved in the industry will go to ensure the
success of the industry is very impressive.
Although the early years of the industry
were defined by hard times and uncertainty
due to poor management of the resource –
and that’s quite a few years ago – the period
from 1915 on would be one of discovery,
advancement, and cooperation.
James Wagner: I’m James Wagner, vicepresident.
Brenda Campbell: Thank you to the
committee for giving us some time here.
We’ve gone high-tech. I’m going to do it by
PowerPoint and I’ll begin.
This is basically 2015 in review. Success is
not without its challenges, and a little bit of
history – I’m not sure if everyone around the
table knows who we are, what we do, and
that’ll blend in with these charts. That
information will flow through, we hope.
Enhancement strategies that were developed
in the last 10 to 20 years have given the wild
public shellfishery a brighter future. The
The wild public shellfishery, that is the main
focus of the PEI Shellfish Association.
55
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
tactics that were used to promote the
reproduction of these oysters that were
immune to the disease which was once
known as Malpeque would become the
foundation for this modern industry.
opposed and remains strongly opposed and
we did state on record that we were
opposed.
On January 20th it was decided that that
recommendation before you, with
amendments, would be going to the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans for a
decision on the recommendation whether to
go forward or stop or whatever. A meeting
was scheduled that day among lease
management board members and observers
or whatever to set a date
on everyone’s
calendar. February 17th was the day that the
decision was to come down.
From the PEI Shellfish Association’s point
of view, engagement is a powerful tool for
any industry, and it is vital for our
association to participate as a valued
organization on boards, at workshops, with
government, with agencies, in planning for
the future of our shellfish industry. All
decisions made in relationship to shellfish
industry development on PEI have the
potential to impact the wild public fishery.
Everything that happens in the waters of
Prince Edward Island, especially the in-land
waters, has an effect on we as fishers.
On Islander Day, that Monday evening, I
received an email – and Stanley Casey is our
representative on that board
– that the
meeting of February 17th was cancelled due
to conflicting schedules. Itthhas now been
rescheduled for March 30 . From an
association point of view we’ve received
suggestions on the same slides saying this is
why this is good for you. It is not – we’d
been told that there are studies out there that
multi-species does work, that it is done in
other jurisdictions.
Our role must be meaningful, respected and
valued in these processes. Our voice, if
heard, will benefit harvesters, small
business, rural communities, and the overall
economy of PEI.
Our industry is very nomadic, transient. I
live in Tyne Valley. I can go to Howe Bay
and fish oysters. I can go to – really, as long
as the area is open – we don’t have zones
that we’re restricted to. We can go
anywhere, to any estuary, find our resource,
fish the product, and we have a job.
For the last two years we have tried
searching Google, we have tried searching
the DFO site. Multispecies, add a species,
nothing comes up, but if you type in
“integrated multi-trophic management,”
wealth of information there. Studies have
been done. I spoke to a lady in BC. I have
her name and documentation here. They did
do a study in BC. They did do a study in
New Brunswick. They’ve done studies in
Nova Scotia.
Cooperation between the shellfish
association, both levels of government,
federal and provincial, and other shellfish
and funding organization can only result in
one important goal: a healthy, productive
shellfish Industry on PEI for everyone.
What’s up there on the screen is an
integrated multi-trophic IMAT right there.
What that is is species that perhaps – okay,
take, for instance, mussels. They poop a lot.
You put a sea cucumber in there. It’s living
off the byproduct of something that may be
not so – they feed off of one another, sort of.
But they live, they complement one another,
and they have the ability to coexist from an
environmental point of view, I suppose.
Multi-species update. This would be the
largest elephant in the room so thI brought that
to the forefront. On January 20 you’ll see
before you a potential – we gave them
copies, did we? – the potential amendment
to the add a species policy. That was
provided to us by the chair of the lease
management board I guess to inform our
membership, for industry. Information for
industry is what they put it as. Since 2014,
when our association became aware of this
situation – and it wasn’t perhaps so much as
– initially we believed we were blindsided.
We weren’t blindsided. It was just the
decision of the day to go along with it. But
as an association that represents a firm
membership, our membership is strongly
Fishers on Prince Edward Island have
known for years – mussels and oysters – I
don’t fish – do you go on lots of grounds to
fish oysters? Would you even consider
going near a mussel –
56
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
James Wagner: No.
I guess where a fisherman is coming from is
we don’t want to close our eyes and hope for
the best here. We just want – what is the
socioeconomic impact on the Jameses, on
me? I have a fishing license. In my mind
that’s my retirement, but the way things are
going I don’t think in five years you’re
going to be able to give them away. If you
think about it, right? They’re of no monetary
value if the industry is not there.
Brenda Campbell: Because mussels and
oysters do not complement one another.
That’s just from a fisherman’s point of view.
We might not know much, but by the lifting
we can go out and we can make a living. We
can keep our families going. If there’s
studies out there are we not, as an
association – should we not have the same
information that everybody else at the table
has?
We’ve had comments: Don’t worry, there’s
a market for standards. Eight to $10 a peck,
$10 to $12 a peck. It’s not going to – would
you be able to survive on that? One peck of
oysters is one hundred count. We usually
fish four peck boxes. We fish 400 oysters in
a box, average. If I go to a processor, that
processor will give me a certain amount. I
think it’s 24 for the choice.
Out of frustration, on January 21st Stanley
Casey – who is our representative – myself,
James was in consultation, we sought legal
advice on the multispecies. We’ve sent a
letter to our new federal minister, the hon.
Hunter Tootoo. We’ve asked for a
ministerial directive and/or order to cease
this process.
James Wagner: Twenty-four, yeah.
We’ve been talking about it now since 2008.
If you think back, if it takes seven years to
decide whether it’s good or bad, why should
it take seven years? If it’s a really good idea
why isn’t the information out there? If I
think I have a good idea and I’m really
proud of my idea, then I’ll spread the word,
spread the good news.
I think this where our association is coming
from. Are we opposed to multispecies, adda-species, multi-trophic? We’re not opposed
to it. We simply don’t know what the
economic impact on our industry will be.
We do not know what the impact on our
environment will be.
Brenda Campbell: In that box is a choice.
There’s the really the pristine ones and
there’s standards. In the spring you’d be
lucky to hit – some fishers are lucky to hit
$50 a box in the spring.
James Wagner: I never held an average of
40 (Indistinct).
Brenda Campbell: Yeah, you know. It’s a
very complicated industry, but I think
sometimes the complications are coming
from – personally, I feel as president, the
last three years has been more complicated
than I feel it needs to be, which our
membership totally (Indistinct) should be.
Our oyster industry here on Prince Edward
Island is here because of sound stewardship.
Yes, somebody might have made a few
mistakes along the road, but it’s there
because – if you’re not a naturalist, in a
sense, and you’ve got no regard for the
environment, you are not a fisher, you are
looking for a quick buck. Okay? It’s the
people that are in it in the long haul that are
saying this is not – have we been consulted?
Yes. We were at tables. Do we feel fair and
equitable at those tables? Oftentimes not.
This past year I've attended I would say over
about 120 meetings, some of which are on
days that I should have been out on the
water because other people’s schedules do
not kind of go with the tides and seasons and
stuff, but that’s fine. If it’s important to you,
you’ll take the time.
Traditionally on Prince Edward Island, any
decisions from the lease management board,
the area director of the DFO here in
Charlottetown or Moncton or Gulf or
whatever has the authority to sign off with
discretionary power on behalf of the
minister. I’m not sure if I read that right, if I
said that right.
The letter to the federal minister was a
matter more of frustration. We’ve had
regional meetings all through 2015 attended
by people that traditionally wouldn’t go to a
meeting if you paid them to be there, but
they’re there, so it matters to them. Our
instruction from our membership is: You
take whatever measure’s necessary to get the
57
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
information we require to make an informed
decision.
I guess one of the main reasons for
presenting here today is: Has there been
changes to that? I guess I’m asking the
standing committee: Is that a
recommendation that anybody accepted?
Fishermen believe that the standing
committee here today or whoever’s at the
table is still in support, and if not, why has
that changed? Do you guys have information
that maybe we don’t have?
Right now to date we’ve received more
opinions and how certain people would like
to see this going more so than factual
information. This is an industry that’s so –
it’s low cost to get into, really. We need
investments into our people sort of thing.
As I say on that slide there, March 16th at
our annual meeting, I have no more
information that we had at the last public
meeting in Ellerslie in November, so I’m
open to any suggestions. If you can get me
the information I’d be more than proud to sit
down with you and – maybe we can’t get the
information, maybe thisthbody can, I don’t
know. But on March 16 any suggestions on
what we tell our harvesters – you’re
standing there, they want to talk
multispecies, and you have zero information
to give them. Why is that? That doesn’t
make any sense to me whatsoever. It’s just
not the way things should be working. If it’s
true consultation, if it’s true partnerships or
whatever – there’s more to consulting. It’s a
two-way street. You can’t communicate one
way and not have it flowing back to you.
We’ll close off with that and you can ask
questions.
Chair: Colin has a question.
Mr. LaVie: Thanks, Chair.
Thanks for coming in and presenting a good
presentation right from the heart as a fisher,
both of you. I’ve heard your presentation
before. This has been an ongoing issue and
it’s at the table again.
How many fishers are there?
Brenda Campbell: It’s hard to determine
because now federally – you used to be able
to go onto the DFO site. Some of these I
know is a balance between federal and
provincial, right? But you used to be able to
go on the site and see how many licenses
there are. The last information I’ve accessed
is as at December 2013 there were 1,275
coastal. Now, my information from DFO at
that point was coastal meant the shellfish,
but then it does not include core fishers,
because most people with a lobster license –
we don’t just fish one species.
I guess this multispecies will not be settled
anytime soon that I can see. I have
no idea
what’s going down on March 20th. There’ll
be no information transferred
until prior to
th
the meeting
on
March
20
,
that
was – sorry,
March 30th. That was quite clear on the
announcement. I assume the decision’s
coming down. No idea, because there’s been
no response from anyone. You talk
multispecies, you’re not – we can’t get the
information.
Last spring there was a delay in the lobsters.
Those guys went oyster fishing, but then we
had the delay, too, so it kind of –
Butth I would, to close that off, on November
26 , 2014 we presented to the Standing
Committee on Fisheries,
Transportationth and
st
Rural Development,
1
Report
of the 5
Session, 64th General Assembly, committee
activities number 7:
James Wagner: Balanced out last year.
Brenda Campbell: We found out more
about who actually is – not everybody with a
lobster license fishes the oysters, but we had
more of an idea last year with the phone
calls. Because their season was cancelled
they were going to go oyster fishing and
then were wondering if we got our delay last
year. Our association asked for a delay in
the oyster season last year and we were
granted permission for that.
“Your committee recommends that the PEI
Aquaculture Leasing Board and Fisheries
and Oceans Canada continue to suspend
applications for adding oysters to mussel
leases until a broad impact study can be
completed on the potential environmental
and economic effects of the ‘add a species’
policy.”
58
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
Did any of us not want to be on the water
making money? Yeah, we did, but
at the
time, just because it was May 1st with the ice
conditions last
year, nobody told the oysters
it was May 1st. They were still down. They
weren’t up. It wasn't their cycle, right? We
just thought, okay, for seven days. It wasn’t
a mandatory delay. We asked for it.
who owns this lease. I’m out on the water
and there’s a buoy and a number on it. Who
owns this lease? I can get that information,
but the licenses –
James Wagner: No. (Indistinct).
Brenda Campbell: They say they have to
go through freedom of information.
There are also a number of communal
licenses. Each band here on PEI has what
they call communal licenses. There’s no
record. We would have no idea of how
many communal licenses are out there.
They’re usually done in three sections, am I
correct?
James Wagner: Falls under (Indistinct).
Brenda Campbell: That’s our information
that that’s –
James Wagner: It falls under the privacy
act more than anything.
James Wagner: (Indistinct).
Brenda Campbell: Yeah, so –
Brenda Campbell: Spring? You can get a
spring license. You can get quahogs in June
and then you can get a communal license for
the fall. Some people get the whole set, but
they’re kind of dealt out in increments so it’s
very hard to determine what numbers are out
there, right?
Mr. LaVie: Brenda, you might not be able
to answer this next question, but in dollars,
what is the oyster fishers’ worth to Prince
Edward Island? What’s it bring into the
economy of PEI?
James Wagner: Rough estimate? Little
over 2,000.
Brenda Campbell: The average fisher –
fishers make a – we make a good, I think I
have that here –
Brenda Campbell: Yeah.
Mr. LaVie: Spinoffs and everything.
James Wagner: Rough estimate.
Mr. LaVie: Oh yeah?
Brenda Campbell: With the spinoffs and
stuff. Like, we work 20-24
weeks a year.
st
and
it ends
Our season starts
May
1
December 1st.
Brenda Campbell: Yeah, yeah. If you
included everybody, right?
James Wagner: Yeah, (Indistinct).
Brenda Campbell:
December 1st, right?
th
May to July 15 we do what we call the
spring fishery, quahogs and oysters. Once
the spat runs in –
Then you take those 2,000 people – some
families it’s a partnership. Partners are out
there fishing both sides, like, have done it
for years. From a fisher’s point of view I can
be on the same boat, sell to the same
processor, and I don’t know if – I think it’s
because Wayne fished longer, but he always
used to get more for his boxes than I did, but
you’re on the same bed. It’s determined on
grade what you make.
James Wagner: July.
Brenda Campbell: – July,thwe take a thbreak.
There’s three days, July 15 to the 20 ?
James Wagner: Eighteenth, the three days.
James Wagner: The variation is too wide
of a gap between fisher to fisher.
Brenda Campbell: The three days. Then
it’s clams and quahogs.
Then it’s the fall
fishery September 15th, which takes us to
November.
Brenda Campbell: Yeah, yeah. In 2013
those were the stats that came out of DFO.
But now with freedom of information you
can’t find out who – I can find out. I can
phone the aquaculture division and find out
Not all of us are out there 24 weeks, but
you’re out there if – I know some people are
59
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
on a – they’ve mentioned that fishers, they’ll
go on unemployment, right? You don’t
file
for your unemployment till October 1st. You
can’t. I can’t say: Well, okay. You’re very
limited on the weeks. There’s only certain
weeks. The weeks that we are on
unemployment are the weeks that the ice is
out there and you couldn’t go fishing if you
wanted to.
One of the comebacks or one of the debates
that comes from that is we’ve mentioned
there are fishers out there that are quite
offended that these spat lines are in our
waterways choking our waterways. There’s
some belief that they shouldn’t be there
because they’re catching there but they’re
going to be removed so they’re not in that
system anymore.
That’s what makes it so complicated
because everybody had different seasons. A
lease holder, they go from –
One of the comebacks has always been:
Public ground, you don’t own the top of the
water. Really, public ground is public
ground. It’s public ground whether it’s high
tide or low tide. Whether you can see the
ground or not, it’s still public fishing
ground. When the root stock is there and the
oyster is going through its natural cycle and
spitting out its spat, those little spat are just
swimming, being taken in by currents back
and forth, and the spat connects to the first
hard surface they can find. They search for
something to connect to to grow and there is
science based on that.
James Wagner: Year round.
An Hon. Member: Year round.
Brenda
Campbell: Year round, but from
May 1st to July 15th during their spring
season
they can’t start their lease till August
6th in clean water.
James Wagner: Without permits.
Brenda Campbell: Without permits. So it’s
just so many – it’s complicated, but it
doesn’t need to be this complicated, I guess.
With those tides coming in and out, that’s
why you find oysters in areas – for instance,
Murray River. I’ve had reports from fishers
that fish down in Murray River, they’re
saying: Brenda, we’re finding oysters where
they never were before. That’s just Mother
Nature, right?
We strongly believe that if this goes ahead
with the ground that’s out there – if the
resource is produced in the cages they are
nice – there is a demand for the market. The
one key thing in this whole equation that I
haven’t heard too much about has been –
yes, there are markets out there, yes, we
need room to grow – but there’s not one
forethought for regeneration.
Chair: Bush Dumville has a question.
Mr. Dumville: Brenda, I’m just trying to
get my head around this. I’m not a fisher so
excuse me.
Spat lines for lease holders are oftentimes
put on our public ground. They get special
permits to put spat lines onto our public
ground. Lease holders, in our mind, are
private landholders. If I want to expand – I
own a property. I want to, I don’t know, I’m
growing carrots or something and the carrots
– I’ve got lots of market for carrots. Can I
go onto your property and start planting my
carrots? For every ounce of spat that hits
those collectors that are then transplanted to
another area is spat that is not naturally
reproduced. Am I making sense?
Brenda Campbell: Yes.
Mr. Dumville: Colin asked a question
regarding how many licenses there were and
then (Indistinct) 175 and then we talked
around 2,000. How many do you have in
your membership?
Brenda Campbell: Right now we have 302.
Mr. Dumville: Okay, 302. Now, who’s
representing the other side, like the sock
industry?
Dr. Bevan-Baker: Absolutely.
Brenda Campbell: That’s kind of freedom
of information too, I suppose.
Brenda Campbell: If it’s not (Indistinct) –
how can you move forward with no thought
of regeneration? It makes no sense to me.
Mr. Dumville: Are they –
60
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
Brenda Campbell: We have no idea.
only myself. We’ve read, we’ve re-read,
because we’re searching for the information,
and it’s not the information to kind of put
things on our side to make us look good, we
just want the information.
Mr. Dumville: So they’re not in your
organization at all?
Brenda Campbell: To my – well, some of
them are. This is where the debate has come
– I do know that they – to my – the last
information that we received was there were
34 Island oyster growers.
The explanation of November 10th, I have
no idea. Like Stanley said, he’s not in the
same – either our comprehension level is
down or we’re not (Indistinct). The
explanation here, this has nothing to do with
oyster growers trying to – the multi – the
leases that are being converted for oyster
production, if it was a lease that you could
choose your species – this whole thing is
surrounding mussel ground and having the
ability to produce oysters.
Mr. Dumville: Okay.
Brenda Campbell: Now, we do have oyster
growers that access our facility. We have a
good relationship with the growers. I think
somewhere along the line there’s this vision
that we don’t have a good relationship. We
have a good relationship with the Island
oyster growers. Like we have and we always
have.
But if you have a top-culture oyster lease
and you want to convert to mussels you’re
not allowed to do it. If you want to put
another species on your lease, you’re not
allowed to do it. This is specific to – so it’s
either good for all – like, you know? If it’s
to add a species that means – one small table
doesn’t pick and choose what species should
be integrated together, right? You know
what I mean?
James Wagner: Yes, right.
Brenda Campbell: It seems that these
divisions have come from – none of us
really know. I firmly believe they have no
more information than we have.
Mr. Dumville: You had a concern,
something about the natural evolution of the
spat coming and going into the water and all
that sort of stuff. Is the fish farming
approach, is that a threat to the product?
Mr. Dumville: Okay. Are you trying to get
clarity? Do you see it as a threat that these
lease grounds are expanding?
James Wagner: Oh yes.
Brenda Campbell: Not if it’s done in
cooperation with – don’t do it and say: This
is the way it is, like it or lump it. We at
Ellerslie, through our oyster development
program, we apply for a spat license, but
those spat lines are on our water lot. We
don’t say: You guys are catching more spat
over there, I’m going to move my line over
there. We own the water lot and we own a
lease.
Mr. Dumville: Is that a threat?
Brenda Campbell: It’s being expanded by
people that have no business in our industry.
Mr. Dumville: Now, is it also a threat that,
okay, they’re doing mussels on their socks
now, and you see it as a threat if they do
oysters on socks?
Brenda Campbell: No, that’s not – the
thing – see, the ground that’s being accessed
– the leases that are no longer produced are
productive for mussels. They want to grow
both species on the same lease.
Mr. Dumville: So what are you asking for?
Like, a definition for your industry and a
definition for the others that are doing it
more in a larger commercial venture?
Mr. Dumville: Okay.
Brenda Campbell: But see, it’s not about
the commercial venture, Bush. I as a
leaseholder – I own a small lease. I as a
leaseholder – each lease that gets approved
has a site development plan. You have to
report every year. If you’re not following
your site development plan –
Brenda Campbell: Even in November
when Minister McIsaac and John Jamieson
presented before this committee, when I
read the deputy minister’s explanation to
this committee on add a species – and not
61
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
James Wagner: They can be revoked.
James Wagner: Yeah, they’re talking five
year – you mean renew the mussel lease,
their contract?
Brenda Campbell: – they can be revoked
and it goes back to the Crown.
Mr. Dumville: Yeah, like (Indistinct) –
The biggest thing that’s happening here is
this non-productive – or what’s identified as
non-productive, and I’m not sure what
process they use for non-productive – they
want the ability to grow oysters on former
mussel leases. We have that. We had the
area director Don Cherry and Lori Cuddy
come to our board meeting and explain to us
it was former mussel leases they were going
to convert to oysters.
James Wagner: It’s usually in 20-year
(Indistinct).
Brenda Campbell: Yeah. I have a small
lease in Johnstons River. I’m good for 30
years.
James Wagner: Twenty.
Brenda Campbell: No, it says 30 in my
contract.
If a mussel lease is not producing it should
go back to the Crown. Let the current oyster
growers, the ones that have – I mean, they
put the blood and sweat into the farming.
Most of your Island oyster growers, if you
look down in –
James Wagner: Oh, I thought it was 20.
Brenda Campbell: So –
James Wagner: (Indistinct).
James Wagner: History.
Brenda Campbell: He thinks it’s 20, I think
it’s 30, but why is that? Do you see our
point? This isn’t about – there is a division
in the industry right now, but it’s more –
Brenda Campbell: – in the history of our
association, every bloody one of them
started with the PEI Shellfish Association.
We don’t have – I think the issue is being
misskewed.
James Wagner: This industry can’t grow.
It’s given opportunity to –
Before the multispecies those mussel leases
weren’t worth nothing and they would be
back in the hands of the DFO. When this
multispecies came up in 2008 those leases
are now going for $10,000 to $15,000 an
acre. Yesterday it wasn’t worth nothing to
the mussel grower. You give it back to the
Crown. Now, ching-ching! I mean, I can’t
put it anymore simpler than that.
Brenda Campbell: But then you look at the
public fishing ground. We have lots of room
to grow. We’ve been administering the
oyster development program for the last 20
years. We’ve been operating on up to – I do
know that even our membership gets
confused with this one. But our agreement
with our province of no matter who was in
government was up to a maximum of
$100,000 toward our oyster development
program.
James Wagner: And the average mussel –
Brenda Campbell: It was worth nothing
before this multispecies. That lease was
worth nothing.
In actual fact our program, the budget starts
out at $111,111. A hundred thousand comes
from the government, 11,000 comes from
what we call the oyster commodity group.
But the last three years, and I only went
back three years, that project has been overbudget on our end because we have to spend
the money first. When there's an
announcement that we’re going to get this
money we don’t get a cheque for $100,000.
We have to spend $100,000 and then we get
it back. But you also have to be in a position
where you got the $100,000 to spend in the
first place.
Mr. Dumville: They have to renew every
year.
Brenda Campbell: And the –
Mr. Dumville: How many years are they
allowed to renew?
Brenda Campbell: They have a five-year
plan don’t they, or something?
62
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
A lot of this is just common sense, but you
do it because you know it’s important and
you know it’s important to the fishermen.
Every fisherman believes that for every
dollar spent in enhancement it’s $8 returned
to them. That was determined in 2010, so I
think that’s gone up a bit.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: – but I know many
fishers and I know that their concerns – I
think the top three concerns were
enhancement, water quality and effluent – I
can’t remember what the third one was, but
it –
Brenda Campbell: It’s the moratorium.
The trouble is when there’s a closure, when
people have to move to concentrated areas,
we only have the ability to spread so much
seed each year. We do the best we can, but
one of the top priorities of our fishermen is
increased enhancement activity. Allow other
people to grow. Allow us to grow, too.
Because we can coexist, we do watch out for
one another, and really most leaseholders,
most growers, have a public license, too.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: Okay, yes, on
multispecies.
I hear all of them are concerns about
conserving this precious resource that we
have. Can you tell me what concerns you
have about the introduction of disease by
bringing spat in from, for example, other
provinces?
Chair: We have another question from
Peter.
Brenda Campbell: Totally, absolutely –
James Wagner: Dead set against.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: Thank you, Chair.
Brenda Campbell: – dead set against it.
Number one, it wasn’t until – and I wasn’t
talking to Pat, but remember I called Robbie
Henderson that evening?
First of all, thank you for the presentation.
You mentioned during the presentation that
– and these were your words, Brenda – we
don’t know much.
Unidentified Voice: (Indistinct)
I disagree. I absolutely disagree. I think
there’s a tremendous depth of knowledge
when you’re talking about generational,
local traditional knowledge of how these
things work, and I think you know an awful
lot more than perhaps the scientists do.
Brenda Campbell: That still absolutely
infuriates me. There is seed. Number one, I
guess, there’s where I go back to I don’t
know much. I didn’t even know that was
happening. I’ve done some research
on it,
written a letter on November 21st to DFO –
Often when we try to imitate, to mimic,
nature or – heaven forbid – the thought that
we can improve on nature, things go
horribly wrong. There’s all sorts of
examples of how scientists and humanity
have tried to improve on nature and it’s
backfired on us because it’s far more
complex than we understand, and there’s lot
of elements and nuances and subtleties that
we nor the scientists understand.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: So just for clarification,
Brenda, the issue you’re talking about is the
importation of spat from other provinces.
Brenda Campbell: Oh yes.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: Is that what you’re –
Brenda Campbell: Big time.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: Okay, I just wanted to
make sure that’s what you’re referring to.
I think what you’re saying here is that this
industry that has been providing thousands
of jobs in rural Prince Edward Island for 150
years is a fragile industry and we have to
look after it. My concern is the introduction
of disease. I’m not a fisher either, Bush –
Brenda Campbell: I notice that I go back to
2014 – at the 2015 presentation – we also
have hatcheries in place in New Brunswick.
Who’s we? That’s the deputy minister’s
word. Who is we?
Brenda Campbell: Thank you for bringing
that up.
There was an oyster seizure October 22nd,
2015, and really in my next life I’m going to
63
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
be a telemarketer just listening to people
phone with complaints. Because between
cell phone, email, and people ending up at
the door – like, this seed was seized in West
Point. Accolades to the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans. Through the
roundtable last month I found out that an
individual is charged, but really that’s not
what offends me as much as that seed came
over. It’s in the bottom of the Foxley River.
this province to allow that to come over just
because – this is all about money.
It’s got nothing to do with resource. It’s got
nothing to do with renewable or anything
like that. It’s got to do with, right now, the
markets are strong. People want in on the
action. But with every boom there’s a bust
and we could very well be, this time in five
years, where the people heading out to
Alberta, there’s nothing really to go out
there for anymore.
I’ve asked numerous requests – written,
verbal, phone calls – to Alberton,
Charlottetown – I was looking for the
certificate. Any seed that comes across, any
interprovincial seed that comes across there,
must be accompanied by a certified seed
certificate.
Really, that’s another thing that affects us
because some of those guys that went out
west, some of them have licenses and
they’re going to be hitting the water. What
else are they going to – you know, really and
that’s fine. That was their choice, but –
James Wagner: Health certificate.
James Wagner: But they were dormant
(Indistinct).
Brenda Campbell: A health certificate
telling us or telling someone that it is safe
for our Island waters. We’ve done numerous
researches and brainstorming on how to stop
diseases from coming in here, such as MSX
is in New Brunswick, it is in Nova Scotia.
Why are we supporting hatcheries out-ofprovince when their own provinces have lost
their wild public fishery? We are the only
wild public fishery left in Canada and we
have every intention of staying that way.
Brenda Campbell: They were dormant
licenses so that’s going to mean more in the
water and more in the resource. We’re just
saying what’s good for one has got to be
good for all.
Chair: Peter has a second question.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: Thank you, Chair.
That seed coming over under DFO
regulations must be inspected by a health
officer, must be accompanied by a
certificate. Basically, we’re asking the
questions: What information do you have to
provide to me so I can allay fears? How did
it get into the Foxley River? It was there
before anybody knew it was there, number
one. The source of the seed, when asked,
quote: We know where it came from, don’t
worry about it, he’s a good guy.
Thanks for that, Brenda. You’re very clear
on that and I appreciate that.
I think we have something incredibly
precious here. You mentioned also in your
presentation that we have the best in the
world and I’m not going to argue with that. I
think we don’t do a great job of telling the
world that. You’re competing with North
Carolina oysters which are just a totally
inferior product, but that’s who you’re
competing with.
Does that bring you guys any comfort? It
doesn’t bring me any comfort. Once it’s here
you don’t – I guess kind of like – you don’t
– something about letting a horse out and
then –
I think that there’s an opportunity here to
harness the Canada’s Food Island concept
that we have and to really brand products on
Prince Edward Island as very special
because there’s a purity and there’s a –
having a wild fishery, you just said, it’s –
Unidentified Voice: (Indistinct).
Brenda Campbell: Yeah, I had that saying
down pat, but really I get really – this really
– it’s offensive to each and every harvester.
I don’t care if it’s oysters. I don’t care if it’s
finfish. I don’t care – trout. It’s an offence to
Brenda Campbell: We must have done
something right or we would have been
gone.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: Yeah.
64
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
Brenda Campbell: You know?
Can you talk, perhaps, about the relationship
– because all of these things are connected –
between the farming community here and
the potential impact that they have on our
waterways? Also, in this case it was
transportation and infrastructure, of course,
and the –
Dr. Bevan-Baker: I think there’s a real
value in that and I’m just not talking in
philosophical terms. I think there’s a dollar
value in that that we’re not getting.
James, I did the math on what you were
saying, James. You’re getting $0.10 per
oyster.
James Wagner: I was up and met with
Brian and a group from transportation back
in late June, sometime there. We asked what
would be the impact if there was a heavy
rain and stuff (Indistinct), and they
guaranteed us it wouldn’t happen. That was
just engineers, I guess, more than anything.
James Wagner: Yeah.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: But when you harvest – I
mean, whether you’re a primary producer of
beef or lobster or potato or blueberries or, in
your case, oysters, you’re getting a tiny
return for all the graft that you’re doing.
You’re out there in the water. You’re the
ones who are doing the hard work.
Chair: As fairness of time, we’d like to –
we have another question from Colin and
Bush. You still have more presentation left?
Brenda Campbell: I was just – some of this
– I felt this would keep me on task but it
doesn’t. I need a workshop or something. I
guess I’ll get some training here.
Brenda Campbell: Even from a tourism
point of view.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: Totally.
Chair: We do have a couple – we have
Colin who has a question and Bush has a
question, and if we could get those two
questions then we can move on to the next
segment.
Brenda Campbell: There’s people that they
see a dory out in the water, to them that’s –
it’s symbolic of stewardship, of clean water.
If we capitalize – like, instead of looking at,
okay, we’re the last wild public – we should
be looking at it as an opportunity because
we could go tourism, we could go
environment. There’s so many things out
there that this brings to the table, sort of
thing, spinoffs.
Brenda Campbell: Yeah.
Chair: If that’s all right?
Mr. LaVie: Brenda, who sits on the board
making these decisions? Is there a
committee? Is there a chair?
Dr. Bevan-Baker: I absolutely agree with
you, Brenda.
Brenda Campbell: Of the lease
management?
I have one final question and it’s relating to
an issue that happened this fall in the Tryon
River. Brian Campbell – I don’t know if
he’s a –
Mr. LaVie: Yeah.
Brenda Campbell: Yes.
Brenda Campbell: I have that with me
today.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: He is a relation of yours?
Mr. LaVie: Who’s the chair?
Brenda Campbell: Yes.
Brenda Campbell: Lewis Creed.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: I figured he might be. I
know Brian fairly well and he called me
down. I went to look at the problem that was
there. We don’t know yet, but it looks like
there might be a profound impact on the
fishery in the Tryon River.
Mr. LaVie: Lewis Creed is – is he a fisher?
Brenda Campbell: No, he’s a consultant, I
guess.
Mr. LaVie: Okay.
65
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
Brenda Campbell: And he is also at every
funding table I go to –
that brought it back to our board level. Since
2012 we have been looking at this multispecies.
James Wagner: Shh.
Ex officio is the chief aquacultural division,
whoever is there at the time. Traditionally
that used to be Lori Cuddy, but then she was
bumped up to area director when Mike
Cherry got transferred or – ex officio status
for the executive director of the PEI
Aquaculture Alliance. Who, by the way,
represents the mussel growers and the Island
oyster growers. So really there’s three –
secretary administrative assistant. Now,
there is observer status. The PEI Shellfish
Association asked a year ago for permission
for or acceptance of any sitting president
sitting as ex officio. Any president of the
association, could we get ex officio status.
Brenda Campbell: Well, I’m just saying.
James Wagner: (Indistinct) watch your
language.
Brenda Campbell: The PEI area director –
Mr. LaVie: Who is that?
Brenda Campbell: Right now everybody at
165 Yeo Drive is acting so it is acting area
director Lori Cuddy, to the best of my
knowledge.
Mr. LaVie: Okay.
Mr. LaVie: So all these people at the table
get a vote?
James Wagner: Or at least it was last
meeting.
Brenda Campbell: No, they don’t vote
now. It’s by consensus.
Brenda Campbell: Yeah. John Jamieson –
well, deputy minister of fisheries, whoever
that is. I just said John because he’s now –
Mr. LaVie: It’s by consensus?
Unidentified Voice: (Indistinct).
Brenda Campbell: That’s what they said.
Brenda Campbell: There’s a third
government representative, but I believe that
– Stanley and I have never really gotten a
clear picture of who’s who around the room
because sometimes you go and it’s the
normal table and then other times it’s quite
large.
Mr. LaVie: And would their deputy
minister get a consensus? Does he get a
voter or a consensus or –
Mr. LaVie: So you or Stanley were there
for the fishers?
Brenda Campbell: That’s the most
confusing thing of all because –
Brenda Campbell: Yes. Okay, PEI cultured
mussel growers have one representative.
Mr. LaVie: Lewis Creed wouldn’t get a
vote or a consensus. He’s a consultant.
Mr. LaVie: Who’s that?
Brenda Campbell:, Yeah. It’s based on the
principle of consensus, and if no consensus
is reached a vote will be held.
Brenda Campbell: Well –
Mr. LaVie: – on this issue?
Brenda Campbell: John – I forget John’s
last name, to tell you the truth.
Mr. LaVie: A vote shall be held?
Mr. LaVie: He’s cultured, okay, John.
Brenda Campbell: Yeah.
Brenda Campbell: Yeah. I can get that to
you though, Colin, or I’ll send it to Ryan.
PEI oyster growers are represented by Jason
Handrahan. The PEI Shellfish Association is
represented by Stan Casey. He’s been there
since 2012. He began in 2012. Actually, it
was Stanley’s presence on this committee
Mr. LaVie: So who all gets a vote, then?
Brenda Campbell: A quorum of at least
two industry and two government.
66
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
Mr. LaVie: So government – it could be the
deputy gets a vote? (Indistinct).
Like Stanley says, I don’t even know – so
really, what we saw and what we think is
before DFO, maybe it’s not even that. I
don’t know what the amendments are. He
doesn’t know what the amendments are.
Brenda Campbell: Yeah, he’s supposed to.
That’s kind of what we were depending on.
In all fairness, that’s what we were
depending on.
Mr. LaVie: One quick question.
James Wagner: (Indistinct).
Chair: Yeah, go ahead.
Brenda Campbell: Based on the
information we thought we kind of had
support. Support is a lovely word to say, but
it’s only seven letters and worth nothing if
there’s no action. That’s just my point of
view, and that’s going to be off the record or
whatever. Sometimes I can get myself into
trouble, but –
Mr. LaVie: So you never saw an impact
study yet.
Brenda Campbell: Oh gosh, no.
Mr. LaVie: Okay.
Brenda Campbell: I’ve applied. I even had
Canadian economic research council fund
the socioeconomic. I had full funding
through UPEI. Then it come down that it
didn’t seem feasible at this time.
James Wagner: (Indistinct).
Brenda Campbell: Anyway, it is what it is.
I can’t help it.
Chair: Okay, I have a –
Chair: Just for some clarification. The
board is going to be presenting
to us in the
meeting of March 18th so any questions
pertaining to that we could hold off and ask
them if –
Brenda Campbell: I had the funding.
Chair: – question from Bush.
Brenda Campbell: It was taken away.
Brenda Campbell: Yeah, yeah.
Mr. Dumville: Just a quick question. We
talked about Nova Scotia seed coming in
here. Can we naturally produce enough seed
to keep our wild designation here on Prince
Edward Island? Why are we importing?
Chair: – if you so desire.
Brenda Campbell: Because really, I can’t
really speak for them. I just know that this is
the way it evolved.
Mr. LaVie: No, but you sit at the table. You
sit at the board table.
Brenda Campbell: Why are we important
is Prince Edward Island oysters are the best
in the world. Number one, they have the
longest shelf life.
Brenda Campbell: I’m there as an
observer.
Mr. Dumville: No, I don’t mean important.
Mr. LaVie: No, but –
Some Hon. Members: Importing.
Brenda Campbell: Stanley is, yeah, Stanley
sits at the table.
Mr. Dumville: Importing.
Brenda Campbell: Importing.
Mr. LaVie: So –
Mr. Dumville: Why?
Brenda Campbell: Should Stanley not have
seen – our last information when we left that
meeting was that the paper before you,
potential to amend, that recommendation
with amendments was going to DFO for a
decision andththe decision would come down
February 17 .
James Wagner: (Indistinct).
Brenda Campbell: I don’t know why. It’s
because – what?
67
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
James Wagner: It’s because of the
multispecies. They need product to start.
That’s why there’s so much demand for seed
coming in from –
Mother Nature waits for no man. Really, this
year it was just a matter of catch-up.
That being said, 2015, we spread 26 loads
which consist of 38 pans of two litres of
oysters. We spread 26 loads from east – I
have a list of the areas, but 17 loads, Tryon
west, and I believe there was nine went east.
There’s so much more to our facility than
putting those oysters onto a truck and
putting them out into the ground. There’s
preparation before, there’s preparation after.
We do, at our facility in Bideford, we
support the lobsters. We have oyster
growers. We have interchange of
information, interchange of equipment, and
that’s why I say it was never an issue of –
we need people currently that have tried to
build the industry to continue to come up
with a plan and how do we move forward.
Brenda Campbell: Yes, yes, yeah, yeah.
Mr. Dumville: Thank you.
Brenda Campbell: What needs to happen
here is everybody get out of their little
pockets. We’re here and you’re there and
you’re there. You need to get together into a
room and come up with a plan that’s – not a
plan, this is what you need to do, what we
need to do is get together in a plan, come to
a consensus, and then everybody’s part of
the process from the beginning. Not being
thrown in halfway through or at – nobody
should be asking permission. It should be
what’s good for the entire industry. That
means processors, that means from the beds
in our waters or the cages in our waters,
right to when it leaves the processors to go
out to the consumer.
Conservation and protection. Really, the
cocktail oyster. Only a very few select
people on PEI have that license for the
cocktail oyster yet with the high demand in
the market for oysters there is also a – we’re
looking for harsher penalties to any
processor, lease holder or harvester doing
so.
Do processors meet with fishers? Not much.
Do processors meet with Island oyster
growers? Not much that we know of
anyway.
Chair: Do you want to carry on with your
presentation?
With the cocktail license, initially they were
brought in – if you have a cocktail license
you’re not allowed to have a –
Brenda Campbell: Okay. Let’s see now.
James Wagner: Commercial license.
The oyster development. We’ve had some
challenges this year. The association
ourselves has changed. We had a look
within ourselves. I do know that there’s
changes on the funding side as well, right?
Brenda Campbell: – commercial license.
That’s great and it sounded really good on
paper. However, you can have a household
where one fellow’s got the cocktail license
and somebody else has got the – and it’s too
easy.
Traditionally our funding was based on –
when the contract was signed, 50%. You
spend that 50 and then you get another 40,
and then you give your final report and you
say how you spent the money sort of thing,
like a claim, andstit would be 50,st40 and 20
between April 1 and March 31 .
The demand is there. As long as the demand
is there and there’s a way for these people to
do stuff they’re not supposed to be doing
and taking the resource without the proper
documentation or whatever then – but I do
know that in 2015 it’s the first time that
we’ve had requests from courts for a firm
victim impact statement from the association
point of view. I know that they’re being
used. That’s the big thing. It’s one thing to
ask for a victim impact, but to know that
they’re used and they’re seen as valid, then
that makes a difference.
This year funding didn’t come down till
September. We started in April because the
oysters aren’t going to wait for contracts to
be signed. We do operate the facility. We
own and operate the facility at Bideford. We
have product on the water and we needed to
continue. The resource does not wait.
68
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
Brenda Campbell: There’s only one cause.
It’s got to affect something because there
was no trout there. That used to be a prime
trout fishing spot. I guess I need to – I can’t
emphasize enough that I don’t want to
blame anybody. I don’t really – I care who
did it, but I don’t really care. I care that it’s
still in the state it is in. It’s over a year now.
So, okay, we can worry about whose fault it
was, but I’m formally requesting or
whatever for some direction as to: Who do
you go to to get that thing cleaned up?
Because it’s a shame.
With the water quality, our biggest issue
with water quality right now is Paughs
Creek. There’s Paughs Creek last April. Last
February we knew, after that storm of last
spring where the bridges all went out in
Prince County, we went through the
property procedure. We contacted
Environment Canada who took a report.
Federal and provincial authorities were out.
Had three community people go out on the
boat with them, had our site supervisor,
Stephen Palmer, who has a degree in
biology or whatever, and a couple of staff
took them out. That is not low tide at Paughs
Creek. That is our broodstock that we have
been putting there for the last 20 years down
to three feet of peat moss.
Spat seizure. We’re really, truly upset over
that and I will remain upset because I can’t
get anything in writing. I can’t get any
responses and really, written requests for
information deserve written responses.
Paughs Creek. You would see trout
fishermen, recreational fishermen all
summer kept asking the question, phoning
environment provincially, phoning
environment federally: What’s going on
with Paughs Creek? I don’t see any action
down there. We had lines out in Paughs
Creek that come spat time you pull them up,
there was not one ounce of spat on them, but
it just ran of peat moss.
Stratford water waste, that’s still an issue. I
know it’s going to come up again in the
spring. We’ve been saying since 2008,
James?
James Wagner: In 2008, yes.
Brenda Campbell: What about Stratford?
Even going through the Charlottetown
process of the infrastructure turnaround,
what can we do? What are we going to do
with Stratford?
Now, there is than investigation, I guess. As at
November 26 I got word from provincial
environment that the feds were taking it over
again. Numerous phone calls, emails. Right
now it’s Paul Walker who is lead
investigator for the feds. I can’t get any
word from the province because now it’s on
the feds’ plate. But really, at the end of the
day, Paughs Creek – do we need to blame
somebody? There’s only one source of that
peat moss and everybody knows where it is.
I know that it’s an employer in the
community and that’s great.
It’s our information and I don’t know if it’s
valid because nobody will – they will phone
you, but they won’t give you anything in
writing, I find. But is there an intention for a
pipe to go across the river? Fishermen have
always been against that only for the reason
that we’re not sure – just because
Charlottetown sewer project has upgraded
the system, can that system handle anymore
or are we putting more strain on it?
However, Paughs Creek deserves a cleanup.
I thought this might be the venue for me to
kind of bring that up because, yes, I mean,
it’s taxpayers’ money that put that
broodstock in there. It’s not whether – you
know, it spits out spat. The seed spat
collection in Bideford last year was – we
have 60 cages out there with nothing in
them. Bideford is identified as a federal seed
reserve. We always had good collection out
there. Every one of the lease holders, every
one of whoever uses the Bideford, from
Lennox all the way down, it’s –
James Wagner: With the short season last
spring we lost a week there and then we lost
nine days with the closure in Stratford, so
our season was cut (Indistinct) last year.
Brenda Campbell: I guess with the wild
public shellfishery we don’t get extensions
nor would – I mean really, it’s –
James Wagner: It’s our spat season. We
don’t want it.
Brenda Campbell: We don’t want the
extension. Some fishermen were looking for
James Wagner: (Indistinct).
69
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
an extension during the spat season. They’re
still members, they were a little bit cranky,
but at the same time, who would want to go
and interfere with the transfer, or with the
normal – you don’t interfere with Mother
Nature too much. They’re good now.
themselves, whether it be through increased
memberships, whether it be through their –
there are savings. We own and operate the
Hurds Point Trailer Park. Those are just
sources of revenue.
That’s why the tourist portion of this is so
important to us, because we do own and
operate the PEI Shellfish Museum. We do
have the aquariums back in there. Do you
know there are positive – it’s not all doom
and gloom. It’s just sometimes you tend to –
it’s the negative all the time.
We contribute – our association and our
fishery – I’ve had fishermen take off fishing
days to come and attend some of these
things, do volunteer, do some fundraising.
I’d just like to – the reason I put that in there
is in 2014 – actually James and Barry
Nippard built the wild pearl, nobody was
there on board with us at the beginning, but
they came on board afterward. So it’s a fully
functional oyster bar that we – there’s ways
that we should be capitalizing on stuff like
that. We continue monetary and in-kind
contributions to our tourism so it’s just
much more than just going out fishing.
Chair: Thank you for the presentation. It
was certainly – I think –
Brenda Campbell: Like I say, we fish first.
That’s all.
Chair: There are certainly lots of issues.
Industry and education. There it is there.
Wild public, we fish 20-24 weeks a year.
There’s also education. We’ve been
concentrating ,especially this year and the
latter part of last year, is we need to educate
our fishermen on the changes. The
buzzword of the day now is the vibrial.
Sometimes it’s a simple – what we have to
concentrate on if we want to continue a good
quality product for our consumers is we’ve
got to start right from the river right to the
day it goes out in the box or you know –
Brenda Campbell: Actually, Pat, I would
need a day. No (Indistinct).
James Wagner: (Indistinct) we didn’t touch
on the (Indistinct).
Chair: Does anybody have any further
questions around the table?
I just might – one little thing, and then – like
a levy – the lobster industry put a levy on
the processors and the fishermen to promote
their product. Is that something that the
shellfish –
James Wagner: (Indistinct)
Brenda Campbell: We just can’t think:
They’re over here. Fishermen need to be
brought up to date on the changing – like,
what are the differences in your water right
now? Why is this happening? Maybe it’s
happening because of climate change.
Maybe it’s happening because you’ve got
lower water levels.
Brenda Campbell: We’ve done that for
many years.
Chair: – industry ever looked at? Oh, there
is one now, is there?
Brenda Campbell: There is. There always
has been. There’s the oyster commodity
group, and that’s kind of why I left. That
particular report is also in the marketing.
We’re governed under regulations in the
marketing council. We are a group – now,
fishers and harvesters, it’s for – for the past
several years, the only people that paid the
commodity fee or the only people that the
processors took – it’s the responsibility of
the processor to collect it from the fishermen
and then remit it to the oyster commodity
group. That oyster commodity group is
made up of nine, has firm bylaws, and it’s
run by nine public oyster fishers.
James Wagner: (Indistinct) the regulations
from CFIA or something (Indistinct).
Brenda Campbell: In closing, I would like
to emphasize the fact that each and every
project that our association involves
themselves with, there is a monetary or inkind contribution that we as fishers make.
When there’s a shortfall – when we do the
oyster development program and we go
over-budget, the only people that are
covering that over-expenditure is fishers
70
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
What we’ve done the past couple of years is
kind of –
Chair: Thanks a lot for the presentation,
James and Brenda.
James Wagner: Integrated them to our
association, like –
I think we’re certainly aware of your major
points that are in the issue. I think
multispecies is one of your primary things. I
think, as you said earlier, this committee has
already made that recommendation to the
Legislature and I don’t know – are you
asking us to reaffirm that –
Brenda Campbell: Growers are in there
too. What we’d like to do with that money –
I mean, sometimes the shortfall is from the
oyster commodity as well. We’d like to see
this fund as industry-driven projects, not just
enhancement.
Brenda Campbell: Well, yeah.
Chair: Do the buyers pay that levy, too, or
just the –
Chair: – that recommendation?
Brenda Campbell: I think the fishermen are
saying – we don’t do this for a living either.
But at the same time, we are volunteers,
each and every bloody one of us, and any
time we go to a meeting it’s at our own cost,
it’s at our own expense, but that’s not the
point. If you’re doing it for the money, then
go someplace else because this isn’t the
industry you should be in if you’re doing it
for the money. It was never the industry to
be in.
Brenda Campbell: No.
Chair: – just the harvesters?
Brenda Campbell: No, but kind of – we’ve
had some legal volunteer – I don’t know
how valid it is, but the man’s a lawyer and
he volunteered his time. So to me he’s still a
lawyer. But he looked at it –
James Wagner: Sort of like (Indistinct).
Chair: Your passion is certainly shining
through. Thank you very much.
Brenda Campbell: – and really the onus is
on the fishermen. They can choose not to
pay it, but they must send a registered letter
to the PEI oyster
commodity group on
December 31st before their next season to
say: I’m not paying this. That has never
happened.
Brenda Campbell: Thank you for the
opportunity.
Chair: Want to take a two-minute break to
stretch your legs, and Hal can stretch his
beard there.
But it is up to – the processors are required
under section 7 of the natural marketing act,
that anyone who markets or sells an oyster
must pay the $50. We’re just kind of doing
more of a you should give us that or more
like visiting with the buyers.
[Recess]
Chair: I’d like to reconvene the meeting
here.
Our next presenter is Randy Pitre. Welcome,
Randy.
In 2013 oyster commodity was in a deficit of
$232; in 2014 when we started kind of meet
and greet and talking things more there was
$2,000 in the bank. Right now at the end of
2015 I’m proud to say we have $6,927.11,
and our enhancement contribution of
$11,111.11 is paid. Our bills are paid.
Everybody wants more in the bank account
but you don’t do it at the expense of – you
do it for everybody.
Randy Pitre: Thank you.
Chair: You just want to state your name
before you start speaking, and if you want to
move right into your presentation then –
Randy Pitre: Sure. My name is Randy Pitre
and I’m a property manager of a blueberry
field. Several blueberry fields in Alberry
Plains. It’s a large field. I want to thank the
committee here this morning for hearing me.
Unidentified Voice: Agreed.
Brenda Campbell: I’ll end with that.
71
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
I want to address the issue with relation to
off-road vehicles. Off-road vehicles are
causing extensive damage to crop fields. In
this particular case, blueberry fields. But I’m
also aware, right across the province, during
the summertime as well, there’s other crops
being damaged as well. Producers and
farmers are at their wits’ end because there’s
only certain things they can do and it gets
very frustrating.
We’re at the stage of some of these fields
here now, I mean, the vines are just
exploding. It’s great, awesome. We had a
really good crop in one of our fields last
year, excellent crop. We got the height.
Harvesters come in, very pleased with it.
Now, blueberry fields aren’t like potatoes.
They aren’t like grain. When the vine
develops the vine is there. You don’t pull it
out of the ground. It’s there year after year.
We have a crop on one field coming up for
this year in August. It’s in Summerville. The
bud setup happened last September. I can go
out and I can take a look at the bud setup
and that tells me what kind of crop we’re
going to have next year in August. It doesn’t
start in May, it starts back in September,
what they call a tip dieback. We hope to get
a bit of snow to cover the tops so we don’t
have winter kill, things of that nature.
All crops are not the same. They all have to
be treated differently for growing
procedures, fertilizing, processing,
harvesting, etc. In case there’s any members
here that aren’t aware, I want to go broad
but I want to get specific because I want to
give each committee member here an idea of
the crop, the frustration that’s involved
when damage of this nature occurs.
For an example, with blueberry fields. When
you start with the development of a field you
could be anywhere from six to 10 years to
develop that field. An extensive amount of
cash and money has to be pumped into those
fields for developments and you get no
returns back until that field fills in. You
could be eight years down the road before
that field’s developed, ready for harvest.
We have the fields there. Now we get snow
and it covers the ground and the crops. The
first snow we had the ground wasn’t frozen.
It was soft. We had maybe that much snow.
It was soft. We then have snowmobiles
coming out of nowhere and they’re traveling
across the fields, an 800-pound machine
going on these crops that we’re trying to get
to height that we’ve just spent 13 years
trying to develop. We’ve just put tens of
thousands of dollars into fertilizer to try to
get the height. The weed control. You get a
John Deere tractor our there with weed
wipers, a person in the tractor, and the
chemical, to do 100 acres and you get a
snowmobile coming in. Boom. That wide,
80 kmh right across your field. It’s gone.
The height’s gone, the plants are flattened,
you have no hope of getting that back. When
you’ve got a crop field every two years you
get a harvest on top of that. That’s a
significant blow to any producer.
Significant.
In this case we’re 13 years down the road
for these fields. We made the conscious
choice, as we have bare spots in the fields,
to not harvest, to just clip so that the energy
of the plants goes back down to the soil to
spread their rhizomes to come back up to fill
in those bare spots.
When you get to the point of – you say: We
have enough of the plant fill-in to have a
harvest. You then have to put an extensive
amount of product – fertilizer, clipping,
burning, you have disease control, etc. An
extensive amount of money has to go in in
order to develop those plants.
This fall we’ve had on this particular field I
don’t know how many snowmobiles going
across. It was just that (Indistinct). We
called the RCMP and they came out each
and every time. One incident when I called
them, we saw the track there and called
them, the RCMP had come out on site,
standing right beside me. We actually
watched a snowmobiler come up on a public
roadway, enter onto the field, and once he
saw the RCMP officer took off as fast as he
could go. Another big strip of damage.
You don’t get a crop every year. Blueberries
are every second year. When the plants do
come up they come up short. You have to
encourage them to get the height so when
the harvesters come in they can get at the
plants. If the plants are too close to the
ground the harvesters can’t get at them. You
encourage the height, you encourage the
plants to thicken so the other plants support
it, and then you have a really good crop.
That’s what we’re doing.
72
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
Brand new, right across. The RCMP had no
means to go after this person. This person’s
in a snowmobile. He’s going across the
field. They can’t go in there with a police
cruiser, and he’s long gone. He’s gone.
successful. We did catch two individuals.
They were served with no trespass orders for
over a year, and I still have the right to
charge one under criminal code. But even as
I’m driving down on route 3 to Montague
just past these fields – and I’ve provided
pictures in here – there’s a picture of a
person on a skidoo right on the highway
travelling. It’s against the law. It’s not
supposed to happen.
From a farmer’s and producer’s point of
view, what do you do? How do you address
it? You’ve now got damage to your field. I
did some investigating and apparently even
these snowmobilers aren’t required to carry
insurance. So if you did catch them who’s
going to pay for the damage? If we caught
that person going across that field who’s
going to pay for all the damage? They’re not
insured.
I followed him on the road for miles. Miles.
He was on route 3. Another picture, he’s
coming into ongoing traffic right there. He’s
not in the ditch. He’s on the shoulder of the
road. Even I can’t drive my vehicle on the
shoulder of the road, I’ll get pulled over by
the RCMP and questioned why I’m driving
on the shoulder of the road. I followed him
right into his residence where he went. We
had a provincial conservation officer, he
visited him and laid down the law what was
to be and what could happen.
If I took my vehicle out here today and I got
in an accident and I hit somebody, I have
insurance to cover that, as we all do, because
that’s a requirement for us to be on the road.
You have to be registered, insured. Here we
have vehicles travelling across farm
properties. In this particular case they’re
gone, but even if we did catch them they
don’t carry insurance. It’s a major problem
there as well.
We had two individuals of that. A picture’s
worth a thousand words and I could come in
here today and tell you it’s happening, but
now you can actually see it. This is what
we’re seeing. I’m in my truck, he’s on the
road. He’s not insured to be on the road.
There’s no law in existence to even allow
him to be travelling on the road. It doesn’t
exist. To my knowledge what they can do,
which that even surprises me, is they can
travel in the ditch. That’s what somebody
told me. I looked it up. That’s what
(Indistinct) Jones told me. They’re allowed
to travel in the ditch.
Something has to be done. To my
knowledge this has been an ongoing issue
for years. This is not the first year. It’s
getting worse every year. This year has been
really bad. It’s growing. The blueberries
can’t recover quickly. The damage is done.
The present legislation for off-road vehicles
– and this would be an all-year-round issue,
as I said, it would cover snowmobiles, fourwheelers, dirt bikes, etc. – it’s just not
working. Something has to be done or
something has to be changed.
I try to use common sense up here. That
doesn’t even make sense because engineers
that develop a road, that’s not what ditches
are for. It’s not for traffic. If the province is
saying they can travel in ditches, then there
are obstacles in those ditches. You’ve got
culverts, you’ve got driveways, you’ve got
people with asphalt driveways. I’ve
provided pictures in here as well where
they’re actually crossing from farm fields
across on the public roadways. Or not the
public roadways but even driveways here.
That’s a person’s driveway, right across.
Some of those driveways have culverts.
The stress caused to producers and farmers
when something like this happens is
extreme, it’s extensive. It’s bad enough to
farm and try to develop a field and produce
a crop and hope for a good crop and a profit
at the end of the day without having all this
stuff going on.
We have a situation here where law
enforcement can’t back up these off-road
vehicles. As far as I'm concerned they can’t.
Because law enforcement have the tools to
be on the road, not off the road. Over five
calls went into the RCMP and we had some
people watching in that area. We actually
hired people watching in the area. We were
If the province or legislation is allowing
these vehicles to travel in ditches, then I’m
just going to raise the question without
getting into too much (Indistinct) on it, if
73
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
legislation is allowing these off-road
vehicles to travel in ditches and somebody
should hit a culvert or an obstacle or
something, a hazard of some sort, could be
liable because it is a public roadway. It
could be the federal government, it could be
the provincial, depending on who has
jurisdiction at the time, but it just doesn’t
make any sense anyway why they’re
travelling in the ditches.
back, as in this case? They come back.
You’re not going to tell them what to do.
We had the same person come back four
times on that field. They were asked to stay
off, they were told to stay off, until the
RCMP had to serve them with a no
trespassing order and that has happened.
But my point is we all have property. We all
want to protect it. There are certain people
that shouldn’t be on it. They don’t have the
right to trespass and that’s exactly what
they’re doing. They’re trespassing on
property. They don’t have the right to do
that.
Now, how does this relate to agriculture? I
don’t think you can separate the two.
Because if you have a piece of farmland, the
question is: How are these off-road vehicles
getting to the farmland? They have to have a
means to get there. If they’re not allowed to
travel on public roads how are they getting
to the farm fields? They’re allowed to cross
the road, but they’re not allowed to travel on
the road. I followed that fellow for miles on
a public highway and he went into his house
and that’s where he was caught.
I’m not really too familiar with the case,
only about what I’ve heard, but I heard of a
case there in Winsloe where one producer
over there, he told them not to come back,
they came back. What did he do? He set up
a barricade to try to stop them. He had a
gun, shooting it in the air. He’s frustrated.
He doesn’t know what else to do. You call
the RCMP, they’re not equipped to go after
these people, but there’s damage being done.
What is a producer to do? What would a
producer do now you’re left with all this
damage? What would a producer do? How
can I get into each one of your minds and try
to convey to each one of you where you can
actually see it, the invasion, the stress, the
loss. I thought of one way. You go home
tonight, you’re with your wives, your kids or
whatever, you’re sitting watching t.v.
You’re there to enjoy your evening and all
of a sudden a snowmobile comes across
your front lawn. Okay?
It’s getting to a point where producers are
getting that frustrated they go to those
extremes and it shouldn’t be that way. It
shouldn’t have to get to that point. That
person was arrested. For what? Protecting
his own land. I don’t agree with him having
a gun there or anything like that, don’t get
me – I’m not supporting that in any way –
but what I’m saying is it gets to a point
people get frustrated. They don’t know what
to do because they feel they don’t have the
support.
Unidentified Voice: It happens.
Randy Pitre: It happens, but it’s your
private land, it’s your space, and it happens.
What do you do? They are ripping it up.
They’re ripping up your sod. You may have
paid a lawn firm to do your lawn. A lot of
people do, they pay a lot of money. You
could have planted shrubs. You could have
planted rose bushes. They can’t see them in
the snow. But you’ve got an 800-pound
machine travelling over your lawn with no
due care or resource of anything you may
have there. What do you? You sit in your
chair and let them go to it or do you go out
and defend your property?
We’re not talking a small amount of dollars
here. You’re talking anywhere from
$25,000, $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 worth
of damage and no way of recouping.
You go out and plant potatoes in June or
July, you reap the harvest in the fall. It
doesn’t work like that in these fields and you
simply just can’t go out and plant another
blueberry plant. It doesn’t work like that so
it’s very frustrating. Some of these
snowmobilers, while the officer was right
there and I was talking to one, they taunt
them. They’re in the centre of the field. I
had one officer, she said she can’t go after
them, and they’re out there taunting and then
take off. They have no means of going after
Most people would go out and defend their
property and ask them what they’re doing
there. You can ask them to leave and they
may leave, but what happens if they come
74
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
them. What I’m saying is there’s no way of
policing this, it just doesn’t exist, unless you
have a helicopter or something else, but
even then it takes a lot of resources to do
that.
land. They just don’t have their own land to
operate.
Therefore it’s going to continue. It’s
happening now, it’s going to continue in the
future, and it’s not going to get any better.
It’s going to get a lot worse. I don’t know
how it got to this in the first place because
we have no means of policing it. There’s no
means of policing any of this. I would say
until the problem is addressed you’d have to
have just an all-out ban on these vehicles to
designated areas where they can be policed.
I don’t see any other option.
I’m just going to point on the insurance part.
There was an incident in the fall where a
snowmobiler, or a young individual, had
come off a private land out onto the road
and he was killed. That’s very sad, but it
very well could have been somebody in the
vehicle that could have been killed as well.
If they were going on a highway such as this
at any high rate of speed, if I was in my
truck and they’re crossing the road and I hit
that person, or they hit me and I was injured
and I had to go in a home or needed medical
care, they’re not insured. They’re not
insured to cover that.
Because somebody’s going to get hurt or
farmers are going to get to the point, they’re
going to get so stressed, that something is
going to happen. People shouldn’t be
charged for defending their own property. If
you have a person coming onto your
property that’s trespassing, that’s a threat.
You should be able to deal with it. You
should be able to call the police force or
somebody to come and deal with it and have
the matter addressed. When they can’t do
that and they don’t have the tools to work
with, then what do you do? Some farmers
and producers take matters into their own
hands, and it’s very unfortunate, They end
up in court, etc.
There is a system on PEI that covers one end
of the Island to the other. It’s called Rails to
Trails. It covers the Island. They can go
from one end of the Island to the other. I’m
not in here to say this morning that with a
wide paintbrush to paint everybody, but
what I’m saying is this is a big problem. It’s
a big problem for farmers and producers.
What I’m suggesting this morning, and I’m
really recommending, and I really want to
happen, is that these off-road vehicles be
designated to certain areas, designated areas,
and that would be the Rails to Trails because
they do have a membership.
It’s unfortunate it’s coming to that, and it’s
unfortunate that people working so hard in a
certain particular industry are suffering the
damages to the costly amounts they are. I
wanted to come in this morning to relay that,
to really push to get a resolution to it.
The trails do cover the province. They do
have policing and people on the trails to
ensure they are registered, and they have all
the necessary paperwork, etc., they need to
do. They’re equipped to do that.
Chair: We do have some questions there.
Do you want to take the questions now? Or
did you –
These off-road vehicles, unless they’re on
private property – let’s say we have an
individual that has their own farm, their own
place to operate this vehicle, that’s fine. But
if you have one of these vehicles and you
don’t have your own private property to
operate that, then where are you going to
operate it? It either has to be on public
property or somebody’s private land or in a
designated area.
Randy Pitre: Sure.
Chair: – continue with your –
Randy Pitre: No, we can –
Chair: Actually, we got quite a – everybody
wants questions.
We’ll start with Hal.
I will suggest and I will submit that many of
these vehicles are being purchased and
bought and they don’t have their own
private land to operate. That’s why they’re
on the roads, that’s why they’re on farmers’
Mr. Perry: Thank you, Chair.
Randy, thanks for coming in today. I do
understand your frustration, especially with
75
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
the crop damage, blueberries. I’ve talked to
a few farmers, too, and they have the same
concerns.
talking about, this is a specific case where
we have laws that are being broken and it’s
impacting you as a blueberry farmer, but I
think it’s symptomatic of a bigger problem
in our province with planning, with
infrastructure, with law enforcement in
general, and safety.
You mentioned one of your
recommendations was to have all off-road
vehicles put on the Confederation Trail, or
right now one of the recommendations were.
Snowmobile association, they have access to
it, but ATVs, four-wheelers, don’t have
access to it. Am I right in saying that one of
your recommendations is to have the ATV
vehicles allowed to use the Confederation
Trail from tip to tip?
I have other cases reported to me with
snowshoers who are on heritage roads that
are unplowed in the winter that are having
conflicts with all-terrain vehicles like
snowmobiles. I have people who on route 2
in District 18 are saying the speed limits are
definitely not being adhered to. We’ve seen
in the spring with cars passing school buses
with their lights flashing, things like this.
There’s calls for photo radar out there and
solutions like that.
Randy Pitre: I won’t go there, but what I
will say – my presentation this morning is
it’s an off-road vehicle. They need to be in a
designated area. How that happens – as far
as the trail goes, what happens in the
summertime? The snowmobiles obviously
wouldn’t be on the trail, but if that goes to
people walking on it, then it comes down to
these vehicles don’t have a place to operate.
This is all part of this law enforcement.
There’s not enough RCMP officers around
looking at this. We’ve seen cyclists who are
killed on the shoulders of our roads and it’s
because we don’t have the infrastructure in
place to handle that, and there’s no plans for
it.
I am not going to – we just can’t stand by
and say: Because these vehicles don’t have a
place to operate they can be on a public road
or they can be in a farm field where there’s a
crop. That's their problem. If they want to
buy a vehicle, they have to have a place to
operate it. If I want to buy an airplane, I go
to the airport, operate it there. If I want to
buy a skateboard, then I go to the skateboard
park and operate it there.
Randy Pitre: Just so I don’t forget, and
with that, law enforcement, you can get a
snowmobiler going 90-100, which I’ve
actually seen. Law enforcement have a
speed limit. They can’t go that fast. They
can be pulling away and law enforcement,
they’re not allowed to chase and these
people know that. They’re aware of that.
People that buy these vehicles have to have
either their own private property to operate
them on or a designated place where they
can operate them. Our blueberry fields are
not that place. A potato field with a crop in
it is not that place. A grain field is not that
place. This is what’s happening.
Mr. Trivers: Exactly.
Randy Pitre: So, yeah.
Mr. Trivers: What we’re seeing, there’s
impacts on the safety and of course now
we’re talking about impacts on the economy
as well with your business, huge. There’s
other impacts as well related to these other
issues related to tourism, with the cycling
and with the ATVs, snowmobiles, all the
rest of it.
So how you get the resolution to that I don’t
know. I’m just being bluntly fair. I don’t
know. I know this is not the solution. If
there’s not a place, they shouldn’t be
operating.
Mr. Perry: That was my only question.
Chair: Brad.
I would like to bring that up to the
committee that this is an area that we should
look at, not just in this specific case and how
it’s impacting the blueberry farmers –
Mr. Trivers: Thank you so much for
bringing this issue forward. It’s extremely
important that, of course, we support our
Island farmers in this. Really what you’re
Randy Pitre: Exactly.
76
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
Mr. Trivers: – but how as a province we
can better plan our infrastructure so that we
understand what’s going on and marry the
economic concerns with the recreational
concerns.
Randy Pitre: Exactly.
just wondering. I think part of this may be
an educational program. I had a whole lot of
questions here. Is this out-and-out
vandalism? Is it stupidity? What is the age
of this gentleman you chased home? Is he
young or old and should have more sense
from an economic point of view?
Mr. Trivers: Thank you so much for
bringing this forward and I hope we’re able
to address this further.
Randy Pitre: The people that we’ve caught
to date range anywhere from 22 to 45. My
understanding is to join a membership –
I know we’ve called in the opposition for an
infrastructure summit. These are the sorts of
issues that can be brought up there as well
that may not be brought up otherwise when
you’re talking to the traditional groups that
you talk to when you’re going out as a
minister of transportation.
Mr. Dumville: Yes.
Randy Pitre: – there’s a cost associated. I
think it’s $300 to $400, I’m not quite sure,
to join memberships. Why pay that money?
They’re just going to go out and drive on
land and avoid it and hopefully not get
caught. I’m going to say that they know the
land doesn’t belong to them. They know
they’re on this property. They don’t own it,
the blueberry land we have here, they don’t
own it. They know the property they own.
They choose to trespass on this land and
hope not to get caught.
Thank you very much, sir.
Randy Pitre: Okay, and I just wanted to
point out as well, producers – and I’ve
provided you the pictures there and there’s
quite a number of pictures – but in your
packet there, there’s a picture there and
there’s a gateway here. The gateway is
posted. It’s a no trespassing sign. If you look
at it you can actually see the snowmobile
track, total disregard for the posted sign. It’s
there. Snowmobile’s here, the sign’s here,
it’s right there. You can actually see the
snowmobile track going right past the sign.
We’ve actually had situations where they
even go and rip the signs down as well.
Mr. Dumville: Do they understand the
financial ramifications to you? Like, I see
this little no trespassing sign. Would it be
something that – blueberry operation – these
are blueberry fields, land, violators will be
prosecuted?
Randy Pitre: We have blueberry signs up
with snowmobiles with the X across and
they are posted on the property. The RCMP
has come out and they have seen the signs
and we have signs up. We have them posted
around. They are there, but the picture that
you have there – that’s taken from a distance
as well from the post. But what I’m trying to
tell you as well, you cannot miss that sign. If
I’m a snowmobiler in that picture where you
are I’m going through that gateway. You
cannot miss that sign.
I just want to go through a few of these.
Chair: We have a couple more questions if
you –
Randy Pitre: Sure.
Chair: – want to take – Bush Dumville.
Mr. Dumville: Randy, thank you very much
for your presentation. I sense your
frustration. I don’t believe any private
landowner should have to put up with this. I
never had this problem when I was in law
enforcement. My son-in-law is now in the
force and he’s been taunted by
snowmobiles. I guess they weren’t invented
back in my day when I was in the force.
That, to me, looking at a post here, a post
here, your snowmobile here and the sign
here, that to me is like taunting: I’m going to
go where I want and you can’t stop me from
trespassing.
Mr. Dumville: Yeah.
Randy Pitre: I don’t know what other
message to get from that.
But I look at this picture, your no
trespassing sign here. It is very small. I’m
77
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
Mr. Dumville: It’s almost like the province
should have a television commercial or a
public service commercial more or less
saying that this is affecting the livelihood of
people and please be more considerate.
There should be an educational program
around it. You’d think that people would
understand this.
Mr. Dumville: I believe they have to be
involved. Are the registration numbers on
these snowmobiles, are they big enough or
you can’t pick them off –
Randy Pitre: No, no.
Mr. Dumville: – they need to be bigger so
you can identify them. Maybe they’ve got to
stick out more.
I sometimes drive by car dealers and you’ll
see about 50 or 100 cars in a row, and I’m
always wondering: My gosh, they must stay
up at night sometimes wondering if
somebody’s going to go and key all of the
cars in a row. No different than the situation
that you’re in with the years it takes you to
produce a crop.
You’re saying designate them to the Rails to
Trails or –
Randy Pitre: Designate them to a
designated area.
Mr. Dumville: – area or –
About the travel in the ditches, I mean, even
a truck going along the side of the road
could go off the road on top of one of them.
Randy Pitre: Not necessarily the Rails to
Trails.
Randy Pitre: Yeah, or even snow – like in
the wintertime, if you have a snowmobiler in
the ditch, travelling in the ditch – and I’m
just going to give you an example – and you
have an operator for a snowplow and they’re
plowing or even winging back snow, let’s
say a – I’m just going to put this out there as
a hypothetical. Let’s say you have a
snowmobiler in the ditch and they’re
travelling and they break down and they’re
there trying to fix their skidoo, and a
snowplow is coming winging back. Potential
for disaster.
Mr. Dumville: Yeah, so it could be the
Rails to Trails, which is a designated area. It
could be another form of designated area or
it could be their own yard, right?
Randy Pitre: Private land, yeah.
Mr. Dumville: So maybe, and I’m just
suggesting this to help them stick out for law
enforcement: educational program, bigger
tags on the machines, and maybe when they
register their snowmobile they have to show
means of being able to get from their own
private property to a designated area, and
that might be them having to register a
snowmobile trailer at the same time they
register their machine.
It just does not make common sense to me,
whoever put the legislation in place, to allow
off-road vehicles to travel in ditches. It just
doesn’t make sense. Ditches to me, in my
mind, are where water flows. It’s an
infrastructure to support the highway. I just
don’t see any vehicles travelling there at all.
Randy Pitre: Take the example of a seadoo that travels – they have these machines
now, they call them sea-doos, something
like skidoo but they travel in water. They
have trailers for those. If somebody has
them in their driveway they have to load
them on a trailer and take them to a
waterway, and then when they’re done put
them back on the trailer and do that. That
would be a suggestion for these skidoos.
This committee is for the department of
agriculture, or agriculture committee, and I
want to kind of keep it there too as well, but
I don’t know how you resolve the issue
without getting the department of
transportation involved and both working
jointly.
Mr. Dumville: That’s what I’m suggesting.
An Hon. Member: Justice as well.
Randy Pitre: Yeah.
Mr. Dumville: Oh I –
Mr. Dumville: That there’s some method
where we can ensure that if it’s a city
dweller like myself, obviously I’m going to
Randy Pitre: Justice as well.
78
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
have to have a trailer unless I’m backing on
Rails to Trails. If I can prove I’m backing on
Rails to Trails or a designated area that’s a
different story altogether, but why set this
individual up for failure where they have to
be illegal to get to their playground?
My question was answered, but I want to
make a statement. There is a great
opportunity here for PEI. Our tourist season
is in the summertime for six to eight weeks.
Why can’t we have a tourist season in our
wintertime? There are tourism operators out
there. To echo what Brad said about this
infrastructure summit, make this a part of
the infrastructure summit because sledding
or snowshoeing or skiing or four-wheeling
are growing on PEI. It’s a growing industry
and it’s a good industry, but let’s manage it,
right? Get them off the fields. Let’s manage
it. If we don’t use the trails let’s make a trail
for them. You charge them, you register
your machine. There’s an income there.
Let’s take advantage of this.
Randy Pitre: The thing is, if you look at the
broader scope – and I’m just thinking here –
if they’re not allowed on public roadways, if
they go with the vehicle means of putting it
on a trailer to getting where they need to be
– so they’re not allowed on the public roads,
they do the vehicle thing – then they don’t
need to be in the ditches. They don’t need to
be on the private land. That’s what I’m
saying. Have them in – there’s only one
other place to go. That’s either in a
designated area or private property, their
own private property.
Randy Pitre: Let’s insure them.
Mr. LaVie: Let’s not be –
Mr. Dumville: Correct.
Randy Pitre: It has to be insured.
Randy Pitre: Yeah. I think the legislation
has to be changed to reflect that. Right now
it doesn’t.
Mr. LaVie: It has to be insured, oh yes.
Let’s not take this as negative. Let’s take
this as a positive and make something
happen on PEI in the wintertime.
The legislation says they can travel in
ditches, which opens up the whole can of
worms for the entire province for this to
happen. They would be more apt to be
spotted if they pull up in a trailer with two
skidoos on it. Neighbours would see them
unloading and stuff of that nature. They’re
not so ready to get away and they have a
trailer with a car there. They can’t drive too,
so it kind of solves the issue.
Our snowmobilers go to New Brunswick.
Why? Because there are trails up there,
right? Let’s keep them on PEI. Let’s have
them come to PEI and let’s make trails for
them. Let’s get some tourism going in the
wintertime. Why is the tourism season –
Banff out there has a tourism season in the
wintertime. Why can’t PEI?
Mr. Dumville: My suggestion.
Chair: We do have the Confederation Trails
on PEI.
Chair: Okay, Colin.
Randy Pitre: Yeah, as I said –
Mr. LaVie: Thanks, Chair.
Mr. LaVie: – or Randy. It’s a problem right
across the Island.
Mr. LaVie: Yes, but that’s an option. Like,
yes, our highways are used for walkers,
they’re used for bicycles, they’re used for
motorcycles, they’re used for tractor-trailers,
they’re used for our highways. Why can’t
our Confederation Trail be? It can be
policed.
Randy Pitre: It is.
Randy Pitre: There are so many days for –
Mr. LaVie: We’ve met with the
associations so I’m glad you came in and
made this presentation to the committee and
made the committee aware, and I hope it
goes farther than this.
Chair: For ATVs, you mean?
Thanks for coming in, Ryan –
Chair: Randy.
Mr. LaVie: Yeah. Make a trail beside the
trail. Let’s take this as not a negative, but
let’s take this as a positive and do something
79
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
for the people of Prince Edward Island in the
wintertime. Let’s make a tourism season in
the wintertime.
Why that legislation exists today just blows
my mind. I don’t understand it. I don’t
understand. What’s the purpose of it? If
you’re in a ditch, where are you going?
Where is your start and where are you
going? It doesn’t make any sense. And you
come up out of the ditch and you rip
somebody’s asphalt off?
Randy Pitre: Or even if you take the
Confederation Trail and it’s kind of
designated so many days for one industry
and so many days for another or – I don’t
know –
Like, for an example, when we had the mild
weather, we had a bit of snow. The ground
wasn’t frozen. They come up on
somebody’s asphalt that just got plowed and
they start – like, those machines have cleats
and everything underneath them. They’re
ripping up the asphalt and down and then up
another one?
Mr. LaVie: All the details will have to be
worked out, but let’s take this as a positive.
It’s a growing industry and let’s move
forward. I’m glad you came into the
committee and made this committee aware
of it because we did meet with associations.
Like you say, not everybody is a bad
paintbrush –
Chair: We have another question.
Randy Pitre: No, I’m not –
Mr. LaVie: But just in closing.
Mr. LaVie: There are good people out there
and the people we met with want a solution.
They don’t want to be going across fields.
Chair: Oh, sorry.
Mr. LaVie: Just in closing, I just want to
close off. My question was answered.
Mr. Trivers: But the people who are on
your blueberry fields are definitely
intentionally breaking the law. I think that’s
important because you have actually – and
we got to catch those bad apples.
I appreciate you coming in. You did a good
presentation and let the committee become
aware of where this is at. Now I'm just
hoping that the committee will continue this
farther whether it’s form a committee to
look at this or whatever happens, but we
have a growing potential here for tourism in
PEI for these people. I think it’s a growing
industry and we should take advantage of it.
Randy Pitre: Yeah.
Mr. Trivers: Just like the speeders, right?
We’ve got to shut them down.
Randy Pitre: Yeah, but it – in coming in
this morning, if you can zero in on two
areas, is that – as I said, I’m not painting the
– there’s a lot of people out there with the
machines and they operate them the way
they should be, respectfully and stuff of that
nature and they’re respectful of others. But
there’s many that don’t.
Thank you.
Chair: Thank you, Colin.
Peter?
Dr. Bevan-Baker: Thank you, Chair, and
thank you, Randy, for the presentation.
As I said, two key points are: number one, if
they don’t have private land or a designated
area, then they’re on somebody else’s
property or they’re on public roads. That’s
kind of where I want to zero in. How do
they get on public roads? How do they get
on farmland? How they do that is the present
legislation that’s in place, that allows them
to travel in the ditches, and that would cover
every road on PEI, and then they can get
into the property.
I, too, sense your frustration. That was quite
clear many times during the presentation
there. I think you’re articulating some pretty
widespread concerns on the Island here. I’ve
had some farmers in my District 17 who
have come to me – people whom I know
personally, good people, but people who
have been pushed to the edge of vigilante
justice, what you were talking about,
because they are unable to do anything
about this and because these are deficiencies
80
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
in our rules and regulations and also in our
ability to enforce those rules.
people to use it recreationally, and I think
there’s just an inherent incompatibility of
ATVs with the other uses.
I think we have an inherent incompatibility
here on Prince Edward Island. We have a
unique situation where we have a tiny
amount of Crown land compared to our
neighbouring provinces. The amount of
Crown land here on Prince Edward Island is
incredibly small. If you're going to own one
of these vehicles, unless you own your own
property – and that has come up several
times – or you stick to the Rails to Trails,
then inevitably you are going to end up
trespassing on somebody’s property.
You made a couple of suggestions there,
Randy, and you made some specific issues
to do with blueberry fields. I understand
that, that years and years of preparation go
into this which can be destroyed in seconds.
But because of the tiny percentage of Crown
land and the large percentage of privately
owned land which is cultivated here on
Prince Edward Island – that’s another part of
the equation – we have this inherent
problem.
That’s a unique problem that we have here
on Prince Edward Island. It’s not like New
Brunswick or Nova Scotia where they have
enough Crown land that they can create
these trails and provide the facilities for the
people who own these machines.
Do you have any other suggestions about
what we might do?
Randy Pitre: I’ve given it a lot of thought.
I’ve had a lot of time to think about this.
I’ve contacted a lot of different departments,
the department of environment, the
department of transportation. We’ve
researched some laws, what the present
legislation is, what could be done. Trying to
not paint everybody with the same brush.
These are recreational vehicles.
I think this is a huge problem here on Prince
Edward Island. We need to look at – often
we look at what our neighbouring provinces
do, but I think that’s a useless approach in
this situation because we’re unique. I like
Bush’s suggestion. I’m looking for solutions
here.
We just, as producers, don’t want to be
interfered with on our land where we’re
growing crops. It’s as simple as that. It’s as
elementary as that. When you do have
interference or you have somebody coming
in doing damage, you should have the right
to protect yourself or you should have the
right to have law enforcement come out and
do something about it.
Randy Pitre: Yeah.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: We want people to be
able to use these machines recreationally in
a way that does not impact other Islanders,
so I’m looking for solutions here.
I think obviously we need more financing to
provide money for proper enforcement,
whether that’s a point-of-sale fee or
something that’s incorporated in an annual
license that these people have to take out.
License plates I think is something that’s
critical. ATVs require to have them so that
the RCMP have some way of identifying
who’s doing it.
In all aspects of this it’s all failed. At the end
of the day we have damage done to a field
and the people driving have no insurance to
cover.
My suggestion would be until there is a
solution that we can’t permit these vehicles
to continue on the way they’re going with
the present legislation. The legislation has to
be changed to not allow these off-road
vehicles to be travelling in ditches until a
solution can be reached. When a solution
can be reached – but until that time, we can’t
have this discussion going on. We just can’t.
I would be absolutely 100% opposed to
ATVs on the Confederation Trail. I think
that’s a total incompatibility with all other
uses.
Mr. Trivers: (Indistinct) the trail, maybe.
I don’t know how it got in there in the first
place, because to me I like to kind of go on
the basis of common sense. It just doesn’t
make any common sense to me why these
Dr. Bevan-Baker: I don’t know if that’s a
possibility, but certainly the trail is a magnet
for cyclists, for runners, for walkers, for
81
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
off-road vehicles are travelling in ditches. It
doesn’t make any sense. In ditches. It
doesn’t make any sense to me.
Mr. Gallant: So you have some help there –
Do I have a solution to it? Not at this time,
other than to say that if they have their
vehicles it needs to be on private land, their
own land, or a designated area. Having said
that, then they can’t be on a producer’s land
without permission or on public property
because the key word is off-road vehicles.
They’re not registered for the road.
Mr. Gallant: – if you happen to use it. Now
don’t get me wrong, I’m not flipping this.
I don’t have the magic wand or solution here
today other than to say it can’t continue
because to allow the legislation to stand the
way it is, this is what’s going to continue,
and it’s getting worse year after year, and
the legislation is allowing this to happen.
It is very unfortunate that people do choose
to go on private property without asking
people’s permission.
Randy Pitre: But –
Randy Pitre:, Yeah. No, I know.
Mr. Gallant: I’m just pointing that out.
You’re talking insurance for the people that
have it.
Now, I know a group that has formed a trail
system by going to the property owners and
asking for their permission and having
insurance for their group and that’s working
quite well. In light of what Bush said, and
you commented on it, if you have to take
your machine from point A to point B and
you’ve got to go across private property,
then maybe you should have to have a trailer
to get you there.
What happens then is if that legislation is
amended to not allow them to travel in
ditches, then what you have is they have no
means of getting from one farmer’s field to
another unless they have that trailer to
transport like the sea-doos.
Mr. Dumville: They must show –
Randy Pitre: Exactly.
Randy Pitre: Which has to be registered,
which has to be insured.
Mr. Gallant: Right? Just to reiterate what
Colin said, we need to – I’m glad you came
in and I’m glad you did this presentation.
We need to discuss this further.
Chair: We have another question from
Sonny.
Mr. Gallant: It’s not a question. My
question was answered. But I just wanted to
thank you very much for your presentation,
and I think I agree with Colin.
Randy Pitre: Just a comment on the
insurance part of it. It’s like insurance for
your vehicle. When you have insurance
policies on whatever you may have, you
elect to have certain things. Crop insurance
covers the crop for that year. It does not
cover the actual damage to that plant that
may never come up again, that took 13 years
or eight years to get there.
We need to take this a few steps further and
maybe some legislation, maybe something
to help these people use these things. I know
there are lots of responsible people that have
four-wheelers and have snowmobiles. It’s a
few bad ones that cause it.
Mr. Gallant: Don’t get me wrong, I
(Indistinct) –
What happens is somebody crosses your
field or crosses my yard and then Johnny’s
coming by and: Oh, gee, there's a right of
way. So he starts using it. Whether that’s
right or wrong, that’s how things get started.
Randy Pitre: No, I’m just – yeah.
Mr. Gallant: – insurance to cover that.
Don’t take it that way.
Insurance – do you folks have insurance?
Do you have insurance on your crop?
Randy Pitre: Yeah.
Chair: Thanks, Sonny.
Randy Pitre: Yeah.
Mr. Gallant: Thank you.
82
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
Chair: Go ahead, Bush.
there are hazards on this farm property.
That’s why we don’t want them on.
Mr. Dumville: I just wanted to make a
quick comment on what Sonny said there.
To give them an inch on that property or any
corridor, it’s a liability issue and we just
can’t go there.
Just another thought of a solution. Is there a
corridor on the edge of your field? Are they
just going in, circling around and causing
trouble or are they trying to get from point A
to point B? Is there any way that you could
designate a corridor on the edge of your
property?
Mr. Dumville: Okay, thank you.
Chair: On behalf of the committee I’d like
to thank you, Randy. I understand your
frustration. It’s good to see that this
committee – and I think you’re presenting to
the transportation and energy committee. It’s
good to see it from a farmer’s perspective on
this issue.
Randy Pitre: No. Because what happens is
– there’s a picture here. I know you are kind
of far away, but that’s a public road here and
it shows them going off the public road right
into the blueberry field here.
I remember when I used to be the mayor
down in Alberton we had situations with the
ATVers going up the streets and that. We
did meet with the RCMP at that time, and
what they told us then is it’s really up to
each individual member whether they
pursue a vehicle or not because the member
themselves could be held liable if something
happened.
Mr. Dumville: Yes.
Randy Pitre: That field is posted and it’s
right there. They go in, they’re going across.
It is posted as a blueberry field. There’s
another sign with a processor up. It’s listed.
It’s right there. We also have many signs
out, snowmobilers with the cross in it and
stuff of that nature.
Randy Pitre: Yeah. When I assess the
whole thing and you talk to the RCMP and
they say they can’t even chase vehicles and
all these limitations, I’ve thought of
everything I possible could have. The only
thing I can come up with is that the
legislation should be – and I’m going to use
the word immediately – changed to prevent
this. Because you do have at this point in
time, today, people taking matters into their
own hands out of frustration and getting
themselves into trouble.
I’ll answer your question on the corridor
business. The fields we have, we have
irrigation ditches. Irrigation ditches are
about six feet deep and they’re about maybe
three feet wide. What happens is it manages
– any heavy rainfall or anything like that
goes to these irrigation ditches. We have the
whole property like that. We probably have
many three quarters of a mile to a mile
throughout the field. We also have a pond
there. It’s nine feet deep. When you get a
freezing and a light covering of snow over
that you don’t know the irrigation ditches
are there. You can’t see that there’s a pond
there because it’s frozen over.
When I say people I mean property owners,
and that’s very unfortunate. It shouldn’t be
happening because all they’re trying to do is
protect their own crops and their business
and stuff of that nature.
We have no trespassing signs up. We have
no snowmobiler signs up. We have it posted.
It’s ignored. The snowmobilers go on. It
could be a liability issue. Because I’ll tell
you, if one of those snowmobiles are
travelling at 60, 70 or 80 kilometres – like,
they’re just flying across the field – and they
hit an irrigation ditch that’s only three feet
wide, the front part of that machine’s going
to tip down. That’s going to flip over.
They’re going to be killed. I explained that
to the RCMP. They agree. My comment was
Chair: Thank you very much, Randy.
Randy Pitre: Thank you very much.
Chair: We certainly appreciate it.
The committee will move on. I think we’re
running a little longer here than maybe
might have been anticipated.
83
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
Number five on the agenda is a request from
Alexander MacKay regarding organic
farming.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: Okay.
Mr. Gallant: I respect what you are both
saying here, but this is an individual that
wrote a letter that’s requesting to come into
our committee. Anybody is allowed to come
into our committee so maybe we should hear
him. Maybe we should give him the
privilege of coming in. I appreciate what
you’re trying to do, but it could be going
down a path we may not want to go down.
Mr. Trivers: I have some comments on
that, Chair, if you want?
Sandy MacKay is one of my constituents.
Reading through his email here to Ryan I
frankly am having trouble understanding
what his issues are even at a high level.
I would like to propose that, as his member,
I go and meet with him and try and clarify
his issues and bring back a report to the
committee so that we can further discuss
whether we want to bring him forward in
front of the group.
Mr. Trivers: And that’s why I –
Mr. Gallant: That we shouldn’t go down.
Mr. Trivers: I suggest that maybe I clarify
what his concerns are. I mean, we had a
great presentation from Randy Pitre today.
Chair: Sure, but yeah – how does the
committee feel about this?
Mr. Gallant: Yeah.
Mr. Dumville: He’s not here today, right?
Mr. Trivers: And we wouldn’t have had
that if we said we have to go to a higher
level organization. So I agree with you and I
would love to just clarify because – unless
someone wants to clarify today what they
think his concerns are because I’m a little
confused myself.
Chair: No.
Mr. Trivers: I don’t think so.
Chair: I think that would fine as long as
he’s clear in understanding that if he wants
to present to the committee he’s welcome to
present to the committee as well.
An Hon. Member: Okay.
Mr. Perry: The thing is – I agree –
Mr. Trivers: This is just a request, Bush.
He wants to come in.
Chair: Hal?
Mr. Dumville: Yeah, okay. Well, you do
the preamble.
Mr. Gallant: Let him come in and tell us
his concerns.
Mr. Trivers: I’ll do some due diligence
here and see what’s going on.
Mr. Perry: Yeah, I agree. We as MLAs
shouldn’t be going out screening who should
come in here to present. Collectively as a
group we should make that decision.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: Yeah, I understand that –
I don’t know Sandy, by the way, but I
assume he’s an independent organic farmer
on the Island here. The organic farmers have
their own organization. It would seem to me
that that would be a more appropriate, or
perhaps additional, presenters to come here.
You might get a broader picture of what
their issues and concerns are.
Mr. Trivers: Okay.
Mr. Perry: I agree with Sonny that we
should let him come in. If he wants to come
in and present, let him present.
Mr. Gallant: Do you want to call for
unanimous consent on that or how do you do
that?
Mr. Trivers: Now he was president of the
certified organic producers co-op for one
year ending in 2015, and he was also
president of the UPSE union for several
years in the early 2000s, but I agree with
you 100% on that one, Peter.
Chair: Do we have consensus on that?
Mr. Trivers: Actually, I would like to
review his letter a little bit more to
84
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
understand what his concerns are here.
Because I understand what you’re saying,
we should have people come in to present to
the committee, but do we – just anybody
writes a letter saying: I want to come in and
talk? We say you can come in and talk? Just
like that?
information that would give them an
advantage.
So it’s not just a tour. I just want to point
that out. They do want to answer your
questions and discuss concerns so –
Mr. LaVie: Anybody can, that’s what it’s
all about.
Mr. Dumville: Ryan, can that be broken
into two parts? Like the discussion and those
that want to go on the tour, fine, and those
who didn’t?
Mr. Trivers: Even if we don’t know what
their concerns are? I’m just saying.
Clerk Assistant: I could –
Mr. Perry: It’s regarding organic farming
(Indistinct), so yeah.
Mr. Dumville: Who already had the tour?
Clerk Assistant: Yeah I could see about
arranging two separate times. Maybe a tour
to start at, say, 10:00 a.m. and then a
meeting discussion say at 11:00 a.m., if that
works better. Does that work for
(Indistinct)?
Chair: Organic farming.
Mr. Trivers: All right, I mean, he is my
constituent. I think it’s great to have him in
front of the committee if you guys would
think that’s appropriate.
Mr. Gallant: If I may, I would love to do
the tour. I’m just out of the province at that
time so I couldn’t go, that’s why, because
I’m out of province.
Chair: Okay, so we have consensus to –
Some Hon. Members: Sure.
Chair: – bring Alexander MacKay in?
Mr. LaVie: Yeah (Indistinct). If we can
pick a date.
All right, the next issue is invitation to tour
the Atlantic Beef Products plant.
Mr. Gallant: If there’s another date that’s
okay, but if (Indistinct).
Clerk Assistant (R. Reddin): I can speak to
that, if I may?
Chair: It’s getting close to Legislature time,
too.
Chair: Yes please, Ryan.
Clerk Assistant: I had sent out an email
earlier in the week about Atlantic Beef
Products preferring for the committee to
come and tour the plant instead of coming in
here themselves to meet with you.
Clerk Assistant: There’s also timing
concerns from their part as well. Certain
times of day they’re doing different things in
the facility. Also, the presence of their
chairman and their president who would like
to meet with the committee. They’re not
always available either.
Some members are fine with that
and
available on the date, March 16th, but I have
some members – basically about four
available and three not or not interested
because they’ve toured the plant before.
Mr. Dumville: And they don’t do the tours
while they’re –
Clerk Assistant: While they’re
slaughtering.
I just point out that also Atlantic Beef
Products, they would prefer to have the
committee go there not just to see how it
works, but also to meet with you in the
boardroom there, answer any questions,
rather than doing that on the record here
where their competition could gain
Mr. Gallant: Could we manage (Indistinct)
– if it’s okay, can we check on another date?
Mr. LaVie: Yeah.
Mr. Gallant: And get back to us?
85
Agriculture and Fisheries
4 March 2016
Clerk Assistant: Before the session or
after?
Mr. Trivers: I think it’s extremely
important that we do have a really good
meeting with the Atlantic Beef Products
plant because at least the vast majority of the
concerns with beef farmers in my district
deal with the plant specifically.
Mr. Gallant: Before.
Clerk Assistant: I could try –
Mr. LaVie: We could do it during the
session.
Chair: Can we go ahead and have the tour
and the meeting with three members short or
do we want to try to –
Mr. Gallant: Or we could do it in the
morning (Indistinct) –
Clerk Assistant: Yes –
Mr. LaVie: That’s right.
Mr. Gallant: Would it be acceptable to
them for the committee to show up with half
their membership?
Some Hon. Members: (Indistinct).
Mr. Trivers: But what’s the issue? We have
one member that can’t make it?
Mr. Perry: Substitution?
Mr. Gallant: I agree with Colin. Let’s pick
another date. If we can’t do it before the
Legislature, do it while the Legislature is in
session. We’ll go out there some morning or
some afternoon when the Legislature is in
session.
Mr. Gallant: Three of us that can’t go.
Mr. Dumville: Three.
Mr. Trivers: You can’t go that particular
day?
Chair: Okay, so I guess the direction would
be to try to work on a date that everybody –
regardless of before, during or after the
Legislature.
Mr. Gallant: I can’t go, he can’t go, and I
don’t know who the third is.
Mr. LaVie: You can’t go either.
Mr. Trivers: Sooner the better.
Mr. Trivers: Why not?
Mr. LaVie: (Indistinct) doesn’t sit till 2:00
p.m. Nobody takes an afternoon off or
evening off –
Mr. LaVie: You’ve got caucus.
Mr. Trivers: I can go.
Chair: No, we don’t do that.
Chair: You can hold your caucus meeting
there too.
Mr. Perry: Is that everything (Indistinct)?
Mr. Gallant: I regret I have to leave. I have
another engagement and I’m late for it.
Mr. Gallant: Is that everything, Chair?
Chair: Yes.
Chair: Okay, do we have something that we
need consensus on or vote for before he
goes?
New business, any new business?
We need a motion to adjourn.
Clerk Assistant: No, I just need direction.
Mr. Perry: Call for adjournment.
Chair: Bye, Sonny.
The Committee adjourned
Some Hon. Members: (Indistinct).
Clerk Assistant: I’m just looking for
direction on what the committee would like
me to do in terms of scheduling this.
86