;

FOPO Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Friday, March 15, 2002

1040

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.))

1045

Mr. Hearn

The Chair

Hon. Gerry Reid (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador)

1050

1055

1100

1105

The Chair

Mr. Burton

Mr. Gerry Reid

1110

Mr. Burton

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo--Alberni, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Gerry Reid

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Gerry Reid

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Gerry Reid

The Chair

Mr. Roy

1115

Mr. Gerry Reid

The Chair

Mr. Matthews

Mr. Gerry Reid

1120

Mr. Matthews

Mr. Gerry Reid

The Chair

1125

Mr. Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Stoffer

Mr. Gerry Reid

Mr. Stoffer

Mr. Gerry Reid

1130

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Gerry Reid

1135

The Chair

Mr. Wappel

Mr. Gerry Reid

Mr. Wappel

Mr. Gerry Reid

Mr. Wappel

1140

Mr. Gerry Reid

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Reid

The Chair

Mr. Hearn

Mr. Gerry Reid

1145

The Chair

Mr. Hearn

Mr. Gerry Reid

The Chair

1150

Mr. Tom Dooley (Director, Department of Fisheries, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador)

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Reid

The Chair

Mr. Hearn

The Chair

Mr. Stoffer

Mr. Gerry Reid

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Reid

1155

The Chair

1200

Mr. Trevor Taylor (Member of the House of Assembly, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador)

1205

1210

1220

The Chair

Mr. Trevor Taylor

The Chair

Mr. Trevor Taylor

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

1225

Mr. Trevor Taylor

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Trevor Taylor

The Chair

1230

Mr. Roy

Mr. Trevor Taylor

The Chair

Mr. Roy

Mr. Trevor Taylor

1235

The Chair

Mr. LeBlanc

Mr. Trevor Taylor

1240

The Chair

Mr. Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Stoffer

Mr. Trevor Taylor

1245

Mr. Hearn

Mr. Trevor Taylor

1250

The Chair

Mr. Wappel

1255

Mr. Trevor Taylor

The Chair

Mr. Stoffer

Mr. Trevor Taylor

1300

The Chair

Mr. Matthews

The Chair

1305

Mr. Trevor Taylor

1310

The Chair

Mr. Jim Morgan (Spokesperson, Newfoundland and Labrador Rural Rights and Boat Owners Association)

The Chair

Mr. Burton

Mr. Jim Morgan

The Chair

Mr. Burton

The Chair

Mr. Stoffer

Mr. Jim Morgan

Mr. Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Stoffer

Mr. Jim Morgan

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Jim Morgan

The Chair

Mr. Jim Morgan

The Chair

Mr. Matthews

Mr. Jim Morgan

The Chair

Mr. Matthews

The Chair

Mr. Hearn

Mr. Jim Morgan

The Chair

Mr. Wappel

Mr. Jim Morgan

Mr. Wappel

Mr. Jim Morgan

Mr. Wappel

Mr. Jim Morgan

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Jim Morgan

The Chair

Mr. Jim Morgan

The Chair

Mr. Allister Hann (Mayor, Town of Burgeo)

The Chair

Mr. Allister Hann

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Allister Hann

The Chair

Mr. Allister Hann

The Chair

Mr. Matthews

The Chair

Mr. Stoffer

Mr. Allister Hann

Mr. Stoffer

Mr. Allister Hann

Mr. Stoffer

Mr. Allister Hann

The Chair

Mr. Hearn

Mr. Allister Hann

Mr. Hearn

Mr. Allister Hann

Mr. Hearn

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Allister Hann

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Allister Hann

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Allister Hann

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Allister Hann

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Allister Hann

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Stoffer

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

NUMBER 043

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Friday, March 15, 2002

]

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

À (1040)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

Welcome, Minister, and your group. I'll ask you in a moment to introduce the group with you. The committee is, for the purposes of the record, in St. John's, Newfoundland, this morning pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) a study of the implications of extending Canada's exclusive economic zone to include the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.

I believe, Loyola, you wanted to say a few words to start.

À (1045)

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to welcome you and the committee to the great district of St. John's West. Let me give sincere thanks to you on behalf of Bill and myself for coming to Newfoundland to deal with this extremely important topic. This is probably the most important topic this committee will ever deal with, so it's great that you're here where the action is to deal with this. Again, we thank you and the committee for being so cooperative in regard to our suggestion that you come not only to Newfoundland, but to St. John's West. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thanks, Loyola.

Mr. Reid.

Hon. Gerry Reid (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I would like to introduce the individuals who are seated with me today. Mary Hodder is the member of the House of Assembly for Burnham Placentia West, one of the areas of our province that has been practically devastated by what's happened to our groundfish stocks on the east coast. My deputy minister is here, Mike Samson, and the director of the Department of Fisheries, Tom Dooley.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, I would like to welcome you to our province. I'd like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak about the fishery, which is of vital importance to the people of our province.

The prosperity of Newfoundland and Labrador has always been highly dependent on the resources of the sea. As a result, developments in international law related to the concept of territorial seas and the rights of coastal states have been of vital importance to this province. This is particularly true where overfishing by foreign vessels has been a major contributor to the collapse of the east coast groundfish resources. Over the past decade this has resulted in the displacement of thousands of fishermen and plant workers in Newfoundland and Labrador alone.

Foreign overfishing and its impact on the economies of coastal states are not new issues. By the late 1940s several countries, including Newfoundland--because we were a country at that time--were increasingly concerned at the growing presence of foreign vessels fishing just outside the three-mile territorial sea, which had been based on straight lines drawn from headland to headland. In 1945 the United States drafted the Truman Proclamation, which declared that coastal states had a right not only to take action to conserve fish stocks outside the traditional three-mile territorial sea, but also to own the mineral resources of the adjacent continental shelf. Meanwhile foreign countries were taking action to unilaterally establish a 200-mile economic zone within which they would regulate fishing activity. Closer to home, the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, ICNAF, was established in 1949 for the purpose of sharing scientific advice and allocating quotas among member states. Unfortunately, however, initiatives such as the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries were not effective in controlling the activities of distant water fleets, and fish stocks off Newfoundland continued to be depleted.

The first conference on the law of the sea was convened under the auspices of the United Nations in 1958 to further develop international law pertaining to governance and protection of world's oceans. At this conference and at a second in 1960 several coastal states, including Canada, supporting a doubling of the territorial sea to six miles, with an adjacent fishery zone of a further six miles. These negotiations were unsuccessful, and in 1964 Canada passed the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, which established a nine-mile fishing zone outside the three-mile limit. This was followed in 1970 by Canada's unilateral extension of the territorial sea to 12 miles.

Canada also tested the boundaries of international law with the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act in 1970, which was intended to protect Arctic waters and their resources. Meanwhile overfishing by foreign vessels in waters adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador continued to increase. To provide just one example, in 1968 the total catch of northern cod reached 810,000 tonnes, of which 687,000 tonnes were harvested by foreign vessels. The results of this onslaught were predictable. By the early 1970s northern cod had collapsed, with major consequences for the Newfoundland and Labrador economy. While Canada's declaration of a 200-mile exclusive zone in 1977 resulted in some rebuilding in the early 1980s, there was no recovery in some areas, such as northern Labrador, which had traditionally supported a significant fishery for Newfoundland and Labrador vessels.

In 1973 a third UN conference on the law of the sea was convened in an effort to achieve international consensus. These negotiations concluded in 1982, with a final agreement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, otherwise known as UNCLOS. UNCLOS is particularly significant for Newfoundland and Labrador, in that it provides for a 12 nautical mile territorial sea, as well as a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone for fisheries purposes. Moreover, UNCLOS provides coastal states with the right to exclusively manage seabed resources to the edge of the continental shelf, even in those cases, such as the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap, where the continental shelf extends for more than 200 miles. This is particularly valuable, since it provides Canada with the right to oil and gas resources throughout the entire continental shelf. Similarly, the UN convention provides Canada with exclusive control over sedentary fish resources, such as snow crab and scallops, to the edge of the continental shelf.

À (1050)

Ladies and gentlemen, it's important to note that we have control of the resources beneath the ocean floor to the end of the continental shelf. We also control crab and scallops to the edge of the continental shelf, but we do not control the fish resources outside the 200-mile limit.

The 1982 United Nations convention also shows the growing international acceptance of the right of a coastal state to the 200-mile exclusive zone, and effectively brought 90% of the world's fisheries under coastal state management. Unfortunately, we were one of, I think, three or four countries in the world where our continental shelf extended beyond the 200-mile limit. However, the third UN conference on the law of the sea did relatively little to develop international law with respect to fisheries occurring outside 200 miles. Thus, while the law of the sea convention contains a number of vague references to the need for states to cooperate to ensure the conservation of fish resources on the high seas, the uncertain extent of the coastal state rights and the absence of an effective enforcement measure and dispute settlement procedure meant, in effect, that few controls existed. This was a major concern with respect to both highly migratory species and straddling stocks, which continue to be heavily exploited by distant water fleets.

In the context of Newfoundland and Labrador, the problem arises because of the extension of the continental shelf beyond the 200-mile exclusive economic zone in two areas known as the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks. These areas represent part of the natural range of several groundfish species, including northern cod, southern Grand Banks cod, and several flatfish species, that are of tremendous economic importance to Newfoundland and Labrador. Significant portions of these stocks move outside the 200-mile limit at certain times through the year in response to changes in water temperature and food availability. During these periods these species have been subject to severe overfishing by foreign vessels. It is clearly impossible for a coastal state such as Canada to manage such stocks effectively within a 200-mile exclusive economic zone in the absence of effective management outside the 200 miles.

A moment ago I mentioned the 1982 United Nations convention that urges nations to cooperate, either bilaterally or through regional international fisheries organizations, to ensure proper management and conservation of fisheries resources on the high seas. The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, or NAFO, as we refer to it, was established in 1978 as the international fisheries management organization, with responsibility for the proper management and conservation of fisheries resources in the northwest Atlantic outside the Canadian 200-mile exclusive economic zone. NAFO, as you all know, is comprised of several countries, including Canada, Russia, Japan, Iceland, the European Union, and others, that have significant fishing interests in the northwest Atlantic.

Unfortunately. however, NAFO, like its predecessor ICNAF, has been ineffective as a fisheries conservation and management organization. The escalation in foreign overfishing off Canada's east coast after 1986 coincided with the entry of Spain and Portugal into the EU. Overfishing by the EU and a number of non-NAFO member countries drastically reduced several straddling groundfish stocks of critical importance to Newfoundland and Labrador, including northern cod, southern Grand Banks cod, American plaice, yellowtail flounder, Greenland halibut, and witch flounder. This overfishing, in turn, greatly reduced Canadian catches of these stocks within the 200-mile limit. Historically, Newfoundland and Labrador fleets accounted for approximately 95% of the total Canadian harvests of these stocks. So it is we in this province who suffer the most as a result of what is happening outside our 200-mile limit, in that we traditionally harvest 95% of those stocks.

By 1993 quotas for NAFO-managed stocks were at an all-time low, and proper scientific assessments could not be conducted, because of discarding and misreporting of catches. The foreign harvest of immature fish was widespread and a major factor in the decline of all stocks managed by NAFO. These factors led to moratoria on principal NAFO-managed stocks in 1994, after Canada's decision to impose moratoria on major groundfish stocks inside the 200 miles in 1992.

À (1055)

Historically, the EU catch of key straddling stocks has been constrained only by the availability of fish. As catches increased, the resource declined to a point where catch levels could not be sustained. In 1987 the EU's share of NAFO's quotas for key straddling stocks, exclusive of northern cod, totalled 23,000 tonnes. Reported catches of these species, including an estimated 35,000 tonnes of northern cod, approximated 135,000 tonnes. In 1990 NAFO allocated 15,000 tonnes of these species to the EU, but they reported 46,000 tonnes themselves, including 22,000 tonnes of northern cod for which they had no allocation. The Canadian estimate, however, of the EU catch of regulated straddling species in 1990 approximated 98,000 tonnes, including 22,000 tonnes of northern cod. In total, overfishing of NAFO-regulated stocks by the EU and non-NAFO countries exceeded 850,000 tonnes over the period 1986 to 1994, at least 240,000 tonnes of which was northern cod. Stock depletion has been so extensive that key fisheries are no longer commercially viable and are under NAFO-imposed moratoria.

Significant gains in NAFO enforcement and management were seen after the Government of Canada sent its navy out to the area in question in 1995 in what have since become known at the turbot wars. The establishment of 100% observer and dockside inspection programs, the establishment of standardized mesh for groundfish, and greater adherence to scientific advice resulted in improvements in compliance within NAFO shortly after 1995.

These conservation measures, however, were short-lived, as is evident in a recent analysis carried out by Canada on fishing activities in the NAFO-regulated areas. This analysis shows increasing trends of non-compliance since 1999. These trends include increased landings of moratoria species, overfishing of 3L shrimp, parties exceeding Greenland halibut quotas, increased use of small gear, and a failure by some parties to even submit a number of observer reports in 2000 and 2001. More than 10,000 tonnes of moratoria species were landed in 2000 by foreign fleets. This volume of fish could provide several months of processing employment to south coast towns like Burgeo and to towns represented by my colleague here today.

Gentlemen, it's too bad you don't have the opportunity to visit a town like Burgeo on the south coast of our province, which was established for one reason only, to prosecute the fishery on the south coast. As it is almost completely isolated from the rest of the province, there is no reason for it to exist outside the fishery. If you ever have the opportunity to visit Burgeo, you will see the devastation that has been caused indirectly by what is happening outside our 200-mile limit.

Canada presented this analysis at the January 2000 NAFO meeting in Denmark. All contracting parties present expressed concern with the situation and acknowledged the need for improvement. Expressions of concern appear to be the most we achieved at this meeting, for, despite scientific advice to the contrary, the quota to Greenland halibut was increased from 40,000 to 44,000 tonnes. Similarly, a motion put forward on depth restrictions, which would have reduce by-catches of species under moratorium, such as American plaice and 3NO cod, was defeated.

Á (1100)

In summary, NAFO has failed us since its inception in 1978, and Canada has failed us as well. The political will, with the exception of a few brief moments in our history, has not existed in Ottawa to deal with foreign overfishing. There must be some drastic changes in the approach and the attitude of the federal government. Decisive action must be taken to deal with foreign overfishing activities on the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.

The fisheries commission of NAFO is unwilling to control the fishing practices of its member-states or implement the necessary action to promote rebuilding of these stocks. It is obvious that the only way to conserve fish stocks outside the 200-mile limit is to bring them under Canadian management. By extending custodial management to the edge of the continental shelf, Canada would manage those stocks that currently straddle the 200-mile limit. This would ensure consistent application of resource conservation measures, while respecting the established shares of other countries. Only under such an agreement will groundfish stocks on the Grand Banks be rebuilt. I urge this committee to seriously consider this approach.

I would like to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak on this issue, which is of vital importance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Thank you very much.

Á (1105)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, and thanks for your direct approach. That's what this committee appreciates.

A number of us on the committee--not that many actually; I guess only three or four are still here--were in Burgeo in 1988 on the TAGS issue. That was an interesting experience. As well, yesterday we visited the surveillance through DFO and provincial airlines in Halifax, which was an eye-opener for us, I think, as to how they can target vessels fishing out there and get a fairly good estimate of illegal activities that may be taking place.

Starting questions we have Mr. Burton.

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you for your very succinct presentation. You certainly didn't mince words. I'll limit my time, because I think the east coast members deserve to ask most of the questions at this particular hearing.

I'm a little concerned about NAFO. I believe we heard from the Fisheries people about NAFO not too long ago, and it seems to be a bit contradictory there. My understanding was that things were going reasonably well, perhaps not as well as they could, so I'm really concerned when I hear about the ineffectiveness of NAFO. It's really not a question I guess, so much as a comment. What sort of input have you had, as minister, from federal Fisheries regarding their take on the effectiveness of NAFO?

Mr. Gerry Reid: If you want to look at what happened at the last NAFO meeting back in January, it becomes obvious that NAFO is not working for the benefit of Canada, and Newfoundland and Labrador in particular. NAFO has the scientific capability to set quotas, along with the help of our own scientific advice here in Canada. Even though we set quotas based on that scientific advice, not only do NAFO members exceed these quotas, but this year they voted to exceed the turbot quotas by 4,000 tonnes, even though there's scientific advice that they shouldn't. To me, NAFO has never worked properly.

The other really galling thing is the objection procedure that NAFO has. Their scientists can tell them what should be fished and what shouldn't and the rates at which they should be fished, but all they have to do is to say, we object, in one particular country. For example, 1,000 tonnes of shrimp in area 3O they say is the quota in that area this year. That's divided among a number of countries, and I think it gives the Faeroe Islands 67 tonnes, as it gives each country 67 tonnes. All the Faeroe Islands, or Denmark, which represents the Faeroe Islands, have to do is say, we object, and they can fish shrimp as much as they want. In fact, last year I think they had 67 tonnes, and they reported over 100 days fishing for 67 tonnes. Gentlemen, you don't have to be a genius to know they were overfishing that quota or they were fishing other species.

We can go on all day and talk about the number of infractions that are occurring outside our 200-mile limit.

Á (1110)

Mr. Andy Burton: Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that we're going to have to review what we heard previously and see if we can get to the actual facts on this.

The Chair: I believe, when Pat Chamut was before the committee, DFO was not overly satisfied with the last round of discussions in NAFO; we had lost a number of resolutions. That's true, we need to get some more specifics.

Mr. James Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo--Alberni, Canadian Alliance): The first question I had was about this town of Burgeo. I wasn't on the committee at the time it visited the community. What is the population, and what is happening in the community currently? Can somebody describe that for us?

Mr. Gerry Reid: We will have the mayor of Burgeo doing a presentation today. I would think there are somewhere in the vicinity of 3,000 people in Burgeo--probably not any more, says Bill, who represents the area.

Mr. James Lunney: I guess we'll hear more about that later.

Coming back to NAFO, there obviously seems to be a lack of enforcement. If there were a will to enforce, who is responsible for enforcement?

Mr. Gerry Reid: Therein, again, lies the problem.

Mr. James Lunney: There is no enforcement.

Mr. Gerry Reid: Well, there is enforcement. The observers are from the home country, so if there is an infraction, they have to go back. For example, if the Spanish are overfishing today on the nose or the tail of the Grand Banks and there is an infraction, they have to go back to Spain and be tried in the Spanish courts, and we never know the outcome--if, in fact, they ever make it to court.

But to get back to the question about the federal Fisheries, I was pleased with what the Canadian government did at this NAFO meeting--or at least Mr. Thibault, and he was only in the job a very short time--with regard to the shrimp allocation out there and the Faeroese. Apparently the Faeroese are very displeased about the fact that they can only fish 67 tonnes, and I think the message was given at NAFO that if they exceed that quota, the Canadian government will seriously consider closing Canadian ports to Faeroese vessels. At least it's a move in the right direction, and I thank the federal minister for doing that.

The Chair: In fact, I believe this committee made that recommendation in November. I think we wrote a letter to the minister to the effect that if NAFO is not working properly, we are going to have a look at what measures we can take, such as not allowing boats to fuel up, offload catches, etc.

Monsieur Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia--Matane, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I would like to start by thanking you for your presentation. As the committee chair was saying, it was very clear and to the point.

I have a fairly straightforward question. You have given us some very important background on NAFO and on stock management both within and outside of the 200-mile zone. I would like you to tell us what the importance of the fishing industry is, here in Newfoundland. How many jobs does it represent? Does it represent 20 or 30% of total employment? How many people are involved in the fishing industry? What has the impact of poor stock management around Newfoundland and within the zone been?

What effect has this had on Newfoundland's economy over the years, since 1970? What impact has this had, and what will the impact be if, within NAFO, we continue to manage things in the same way? Do we run the risk of witnessing the almost-complete disappearance of a very significant industry for Newfoundland and have we passed the point of no return? That, in essence, is my question. Can we really claim that reconstitution of the stocks is a real possibility today, with the overfishing that has occurred?

Á (1115)

[English]

Mr. Gerry Reid: Thank you very much for your questions. I guess the number of people employed by fisheries directly comes to approximately 30,000, but indirectly, I guess, it affects the whole province, all of us. We came here in 1497 as a result of the fishery, it's what's kept us there since then, it's the backbone of our economy, and it's not just those who are directly involved, but it's also all the spin-off jobs. For example, there are numerous individuals employed in the trucking industry each year as a direct result of the fishery.

What impact has it had? There are whole areas of the province that have been devastated as a result of the collapse of the groundfish fishery. It's been felt in every fishing community in this province. I talked about Burgeo and about some of the towns in my colleague's district where employment has decreased dramatically. People are leaving the province. I don't know if you saw the news last night, but we have out-migration far greater than any other province in the country. The census that they recently completed shows that our population drop is the largest in the country, it's the largest in our history. All of that is a direct result of what has happened with our fishery. In my own district I represent four islands on the north-east coast, and 90% of those people depend directly or indirectly on the fishery for a living. For the past 10 years the town of Twillingate and Twillingate Island, with 4,000 people, have done nothing in the fishery. You should really get out and look at what it has done to our communities, see the houses that are boarded up. The young people have left to go to the mainland, because there's nothing here for them.

Do I think the fishery is at a point of no return? Our northern cod stocks have shown so little recovery since the moratorium in 1992 that for commercially viability, I really don't know; it certainly doesn't look good. Last year the index fishery was reduced again. We're catching 5,600 tonnes of northern cod. Back in 1988 the total allowable catch for Canada of northern cod was somewhere in the area of 266,000 tonnes. So if you see it dropping from 266,000 to 5,600, you can imagine the impact that's having on the communities on the north-east coast of this province. I really can't tell you if they're going to return, but I would suggest that you speak with your federal counterparts and the scientists in DFO. They could certainly give you a better assessment, but to be in our lifetime, I don't see northern cod ever returning to the heights or the quotas we had previously.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Bill Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin--St. George's, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First, I want to welcome you and the committee to the province, and I want to welcome the provincial minister and his delegation this morning.

Minister, you outlined very clearly the history of what's happened to our fish resources, our stocks, particularly outside the 200-mile limit. You talked about NAFO, the weaknesses and the problems. What's the provincial government's position in regard to NAFO? What would you recommend to the federal government? Should we continue to participate, or should we leave what many of us refer to in this province as the toothless creature? I'd like to hear what your recommendation would be to the federal government on NAFO.

Mr. Gerry Reid: I think we should tell NAFO that in the meeting coming up in September, unless we see some very positive signs that they're going to at least try to abide by the rules set down by the commission, we will pull out of it. I honestly believe that. It hasn't satisfied the needs of the people of this province. In fact, it's been referred to here for years and years as a toothless tiger. It tries to regulate a bunch of high seas pirates, to be blunt. If you have members of NAFO, NAFO has the scientific capabilities to set quotas, and its member states, those who sit around the table as part of that organization, leave the NAFO meeting after the quotas are set and go out there and overfish, they use illegal mesh size, I don't see the point of our staying in there.

Somebody said the other day they're eco-terrorists, and that's a good description of them. George Bush declared war on terrorism, we followed suit, everyone thought it was great, but we've got a bunch of eco-terrorists on the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks who nobody seems to worry about. We protest here in our own province about dams being built in Belize and what that is going to do to the environment of Belize. I don't hear much coming out of Belize about what's happening on the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks. I don't hear a lot from Canadians. In fact, you hear very little.

So I think we should fire the last shot at NAFO. Tell them, if they don't get their act together and live up to the expectations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Canadians in general, we'll pull out of it.

Á (1120)

Mr. Bill Matthews: Thank you, minister, for your very frank comments. I don't know if you realize it or not, but around this table you have tremendous support on this issue.

If Canada were to take the step as you recommend and pull out of NAFO, what would be the next logical step? Would it be unilateral extension of jurisdiction? I'd like you to put on the record for us very clearly what the Government of Newfoundland's position would be in that circumstance.

Mr. Gerry Reid: We're looking at custodial management, not extended jurisdiction, custodial management of the continental shelf, including the nose and the tail and the Flemish Cap. We would, using our own scientific capabilities, go out and determine what the quotas should be. Keeping in mind that some of these countries other than Canada have fished in these waters for a couple of hundred years, we would go out, we would assess the fish stocks, we would set the quotas. We would give them quotas, but we would also enforce the regulations.

I think, if you were to go to London today, stand on the street corner, and say to any individual who passed that we've got serious problems with the fishery off the coast of Canada and people are dramatically overfishing those stocks, and all we want to do is to be able to set the quotas and ask these individuals to live by the law, there would be sympathy. We all, in our everyday lives, live by the law, and if we don't live by the law, we're penalized.

So I'm saying that we take custodial management, we do the scientific research, we set the quotas, but we also enforce the quotas. And then if an individual country or company wanted to overfish on the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks, we would arrest them and we would penalize them.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Matthews, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Stoffer.

Á (1125)

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Minister, for your presentation.

You're absolutely right about the migration from Newfoundland and Labrador. Over 40,000 in the last ten years have left this province, and most of it, as you say, is related to the fisheries.

It's rather ironic, Mr. Chairman, that we are having this meeting right here, when in the other room DFO is having meetings regarding NAFO. I think we should take this meeting over to that room and listen to what they're saying.

On Monday we had meetings with DFAIT, and DFAIT told us every reason in the world why we shouldn't extend jurisdictional responsibility past 200 miles.

The Chair: For people here, DFAIT is the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: So I recommend, sir, that you get a copy of those minutes, so you can read exactly what they told us in that committee.

You mentioned observer reports. Have you ever seen an international observer report yourself?

Mr. Gerry Reid: I haven't seen one, no.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: We did. It was all blanked out, with just the name of the ship, the time it sailed, and that was it. It was a big thick book, and it was all whited out. These reports aren't really worth anything.

You talk about custodial management. I think you are watering down a bit what you would like. First, I don't think Canada would put the money into enforcement, science, and anything else to do a proper job of managing those stocks. Second, there's a perception, at least around this table, and we've heard it before, that historically, Newfoundland fish have been traded off for the benefit of other aspects of our economy in central Canada. We just recently heard, Mr. Chairman, about the talks in Norway with the EFTA countries about shipbuilding and aquaculture in respect of some sort of benefit perceived for central Canada. I'd just like your comments on why you wouldn't want to have complete control, instead of just custodial management. Why not go all the way?

Mr. Gerry Reid: I think custodial management would be easier to sell. That's the reason I say custodial management. We've been talking to the federal government for years about extending jurisdiction to include the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and Flemish Cap, and we haven't got anywhere with that. With the exception of when we sent the navy out in 1995, this hasn't gone anywhere. I think the custodial management scheme would be easier to sell internationally than just going out and unilaterally extending jurisdiction to take in those areas. I think any reasonable person in the world would buy into custodial management, in that we would still be allowing foreigners who traditionally fished here to continue to fish, but they would only fish to quotas allocated to them by the Canadian government.

Á (1130)

I don't know why DFAIT would say this is not a good idea, to extend the jurisdiction to the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks. They haven't told it to me. I can't imagine that it would make a lot of sense to me either, so I don't even know if I want to hear it.

You talked about the observer reports, the out-migration, and the impact on this province. My colleague just wrote me a little note saying Marystown used to employ 1,150 full-time workers for 52 weeks a year. Last year 600 got employment for 14 to 24 weeks. If you're talking about out-migration, there's the reason we have it. In 1992 we closed the fishery in this province. We put 30,000 people out of work with the stroke of a pen. I was here when it happened. In fact, I was working for the Minister of Fisheries for this province of the day. I was in the office of the federal minister in downtown St. John's before he went to the microphones--I think it was in this very building--and closed the fishery of this province. We couldn't believe it. We couldn't believe the reports that came out of DFO back in January of that year, when they said, basically, the cod stocks had collapsed. It was a total shock.

For DFAIT to say we shouldn't do this and shouldn't do that--did they offer a suggestion? Did they offer a suggestion on how we should deal with this problem?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Not a word.

As you know, 20 years ago we signed the law of the sea, but we haven't ratified it yet. Do you have any confidence in this government, at least within DFO, to put the resources, either financial or human, into doing the scientific work for those stocks, and also the proper enforcement? Past governments are just as guilty. They would need to have a major change of philosophy in order to do exactly what you want to do. Do you have the confidence that act can be done?

Mr. Gerry Reid: I think it has to be done. When you're talking about this government, we haven't seen a lot of difference when it comes to the fishery in any government that we've had in Ottawa. I can remember going to Ottawa in 1989-1990, when there was a different government, talking about sending the gunboats out to drive them off the northern tail of the Grand Banks, and we were literally laughed at--a crazy idea, you'd start a third world war, go home, boy. But we sent them out in 1995. It worked, temporarily. When you're talking DFAIT, you're talking diplomats, and diplomats don't like to do things that rock the boat.

Á (1135)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I think we found that out the other night. They don't like to do things to rock the boat.

Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Minister, allow me to apologize. I thought the meeting started at 9 o'clock. I have had an opportunity to review your remarks.

Mr. Stoffer mentioned some of the advice we received from the diplomats, as you put it, and I just want to tell you what it is. There are four reasons set out as to why your suggestion, would be extremely problematic, and I'd like your comments, once I give you the four reasons.

First, there's a total lack of international support for the unilateral extension of the EEZ, the economic zone. Second, unilateral extension of the EEZ would be contrary to the international fisheries priorities Canada has pursued since the modern EEZ emerged. Third, repudiation of a tenet as fundamental to the convention on the law of the sea as the 200-mile EEZ would render it very difficult for Canada to fully partake in the rights, duties, and organizations the convention creates. Finally, unilateral extension of the EEZ would practically guarantee a drawn-out and expensive legal challenge against Canada, with significant risk of a Canadian loss.

That is the legal advice I'm going to presume has been given consistently to anyone who is appointed as the Minister of Fisheries federally, and I'd like your comments on those four pieces of advice.

Mr. Gerry Reid: I think I'll start with the last one. That's exactly what it is, a legal opinion, and it certainly differs from ours. And you're talking about the expense. Maybe that's where the crux of the matter is, the fact that it would cost something to do something for the people of this province. That's as much as I' m going to say about that one.

You talk about the support from other countries. Why would other countries support us? Why would countries that are fishing basically unregulated on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks today support us, if we're going to tell them that they can't overfish? Why would they support us? Those are very weak arguments, as far as I'm concerned. It's a wishy-washy way for the federal government to back away from its responsibilities to the people of this province.

Mr. Tom Wappel: In your remarks you mentioned the Truman Proclamation, and as I pointed out to the legal advisers, it's quite probable that President Truman's advisers gave him the same advice I just outlined to you. He just said, stuff it, I'm doing the Truman Proclamation. Wouldn't you agree with that?

Mr. Gerry Reid: Yes, I agree totally.

Mr. Tom Wappel: We had a briefing on NAFO, and I think your assessment in your comments is pretty accurate, but we were told that there seems to be some improvement. I just wanted your comments on post-1995 improvement to conservation and enforcement measures. We were told that management has improved. There are 100% observers, we're told, there are satellite tracking devices, there are more effective dockside inspections, and there's a scheme of joint international inspection and surveillance. I'd just like your comments on whether or not you agree that those items have been improved.

Á (1140)

Mr. Gerry Reid: I agree that for a short period of time after we sent the gun boats in 1995 it did improve, but it seems to be slipping back the other way again. The problem we have is with the enforcement out there and the sanctions.

You talked about 100% observer coverage. There's a debate now, and we're very concerned that Iceland and other NAFO countries are saying there's really no need for 100% observer coverage. There's a good possibility that they may pull out of that program this year, which scares me.

You talked about fines and stuff like that. I don't know if any of these countries have ever been fined. I don't even know if they've gone to court for infractions they've committed on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. Maybe DFAIT does have that information, but they certainly haven't made it available to us. I'd like it if you could check it out and see whether that information is available.

The Chair: We'll deal with that. We'll raise the question of whether or not there have been any fines or penalties or any hearings relative to that. We can find that information.

Mr. Gerry Reid: Also, if they think it's getting better, why are they still using undersized mesh for certain species on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks? Why are they still overfishing quotas? Why are they going against their own scientific advice and raising the total allowable catch for turbot this year? If that's movement in the right direction, it's not the direction we want to go in.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me just say before I ask a couple of questions that the committee is here not just because we have nothing else to do and we're touring the country or something, we're here because of this very issue. We realize how important it is, and I think now it is a very public issue, it has drawn a lot of attention, particularly after the NAFO meeting. When we raised this before Christmas, the interest was fair, but certainly after the NAFO meeting, there's a lot more interest in it. Now the ball is rolling, I think it's time to keep it rolling.

Some of the presentations we've had and the briefings we've had in Ottawa have certainly been one-sided. We said the other night to the committee, don't worry, when we get to Newfoundland, we'll get the other side of the story. That's exactly what we want to hear. Some of the points you raise and the examples you gave, and the examples from Mrs. Hodder's area, certainly create an image that none of us likes to see.

I come from the southern shore area, St. Mary's Bay. Trepassey had over 600 people working, Mr. Chairman, Fermeuse about 400. Neither of those plants is open today. The people are all over the place, across the country working in meat-packing plants for $6 and $8 an hour, when everything they have is here in Newfoundland. That's pretty hard to take.

What I would like to ask the minister to elaborate on is this. We've basically talked about the effect on the people directly involved in the fishery, but with the out-migration, particularly of our younger people, we're left with smaller numbers, we are left with older people. There's the effect of that on the budget. We're getting fewer dollars under the transfer payments because of the population, yet the aging population requires greater expenditures than the average in Canada. As a minister in the government, Mr. Reid, I'm sure you see that this has a drastic effect on your bottom line and the services we can provide in the province. So the fishery, not only directly, but indirectly, is really hurting this province.

Mr. Gerry Reid: Thank you, Loyola.

You're absolutely right. The fact of the matter is that for every one person who leaves this province next year--God forbid--we'll lose transfer payments from Ottawa. We don't want transfer payments from Ottawa, but unfortunately, we have to take them. They're based, for a good part, on the number of people who reside here in the province. As Loyola said, it's our younger people who are leaving and the older ones who are staying. We're all going to get that way in the not-too-distant future.

Let me give you an example of the cost involved, particularly with home care for our elderly in the province. Back in 1988, I think, the federal and provincial governments did a pilot project on home care for elderly citizens who were sick in this province. I think they started in my district of Twillingate. The pilot project that year cost $200,000, and the federal government has since pulled out of that home care program. Last year we spent $40 million on that program ourselves. As they always do, the federal government comes up with these great plans, and they're very worthwhile programs, they get in there and get it started, but you know what they do then, don't you? They pull the funding and leave the provincial governments holding the bag for the programs they thought were great to begin with. There's a prime example with the home care.

You're right, Loyola, the collapse of the groundfish fishery off our east coast has certainly had a dramatic impact on our whole way of life in this province, and it's continuing to do so. Unless some decisions are made by the government of which all of you are a part, things aren't going to improve in the fishery.

Á (1145)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: The phrase I use, Mr. Chairman, when I get frustrated is, it's only Newfoundland and it's only fish. I wonder, if this were Canadian beef we were talking about, an infringement on the prairies, or Ontario cars, whether the government wouldn't be a little more attentive. I don't want to pick on my colleagues, because I would say publicly that members of this committee have worked very well together. We have not been sniping or worrying about what parties we belong to, we've been concentrating on the issues, and I think we've done a fairly good job, particularly as it relates to Newfoundland. We've had two or three big issues like the shrimp fishery. As you know, we had great hearings on this and the marine infrastructure hearings, both of which resulted in reports and action. We hope it will be so on this one also.

Again, somehow governments, bureaucrats, and perhaps government elected people don't realize the impact. Who cares, it's only fish? That attitude still seems to be there. The economy of Canada, and particularly our own area, depends so much on it, and what a different province we would be even if we had the 20 million pounds we know were caught of species under moratoria. What could happen in this province if we got a fair deal on our share of the resources and if we could stop this overfishing etc.? What effect do you think it would have, Mr. Minister, on places like Marystown, on places like Trepassey, on places like Twillingate?

Mr. Gerry Reid: To get back to your original comment comparing the fishery to the wheat farmers out west, and I guess you could also compare it to the auto industry in Ontario, because the fishery to this province is equivalent to the auto industry in Ontario, if today somebody were to say the auto industry in Ontario was closing tomorrow, I think there would be far more done than was done when we had the moratorium and people would take it far more seriously.

I guess there are two reasons, As you said, it's fish, and we have such a small population. We only have seven seats in the House of Commons, seven voices. Even though we've had some very good representation in Ottawa and very vocal individuals and we still have them today, at the end of day, we're still only seven seats, and seven votes really don't count for a lot when you're talking 301. The other problem we're going to have is that with out-migration and population decline, we could very well end up with fewer seats than the seven we currently have.

You talked about the 20 million pounds of fish and what they could do. Ask Mayor Hann from Burgeo what 20 million pounds of fish could do for his town.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I have a couple of questions myself. We're already over time. We don't want to get too far behind.

You said in your remarks that the escalation of overfishing coincided with the entry of Spain and Portugal into the EU in 1986. I think you left the impression that it eased somewhat after we took strong action in the turbot issue in 1995. I think that's true, but you've given us some numbers about overfishing and fishing moratoria species since that time. Are those numbers from DFO? Where do we get those numbers? Mr. Dooley.

Á (1150)

Mr. Tom Dooley (Director, Department of Fisheries, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador): Yes, they come from DFO, mainly from the package they put together on the review of fishing activities in the NAFO regulatory area. You guys should get a copy of that. I don't if you have one. It was the presentation given in Denmark by Pat Chamut.

The Chair: Okay. In fact, I was talking to him at breakfast this morning, he's here, and we did have Pat before the committee. But we really need to get those numbers, and with that information, we can obtain them.

The bottom line here is, what can we do at the end of the day? We heard from DFAIT last week their point of view on what we can't do. They didn't mention anything along the lines of custodial management. I'm wondering if you can explain it to us a little further. It's an interesting concept, if we can't get action at NAFO. Can you explain a little further how it would operate in making that effective?

Mr. Gerry Reid: Basically, we wouldn't take ownership, we'd take custody. We would do the science on the stocks to the edge of the continental shelf, we would do the assessment of that science, we would set the quotas, and allow foreign countries that historically fished in that area a percentage of the total quota, based on their historical presence, but we would also enforce the rules. If someone broke the rules, they overfished their quota, they were using illegal gear, misreporting, then it would be the Canadian government, not the host state of these fishing vessels, that would do the prosecution and the fining. I think that would be easier to sell than the actual taking of jurisdiction and extending it to the end of the continental shelf. If we say, we're not throwing you out, but we expect you to abide by the rules, I don't think any reasonable individual would argue against that.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Hearn and Mr. Stoffer, very quickly.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Mr. Stoffer mentioned earlier that the officials were next door and perhaps we should go in and listen. I think they should come in here and listen to what's going to be said here today, because it might change some attitudes.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You mentioned custodial management, but it appears that Canada will take all the cost of science, enforcement, etc., and the foreigners will still be allowed to catch fish without any additional costs. Would you envision a cost-sharing agreement, then, on some of this enforcement and scientific work?

Mr. Gerry Reid: Yes. Right now I would assume they're contributing towards NAFO anyway. Someone is doing the research that's out there today. You could do that for licence fees, if nothing else.

The Chair: We were informed by our officials that we're paying 50% of the NAFO costs.

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister and your delegation. Is there any last point you want to make?

Mr. Gerry Reid: You talked a lot today about what the impact of the fishery was. We came here in 1497, we survived in this province for approximately 450 years before Confederation for one reason, to prosecute the fishery. When we hear mainland editorialists say the only reason we prosecute the fishery is to gain access to social programs, it's a very galling message from mainland Canada in that regard. We survived without social programs from the federal government for 450 years. We were independent of the Canadian government; we joined Canada in 1949. So we managed to survive without the Canadian social programs for the 450 years leading up to 1949.

That's the final comment I'd like to make.

Á (1155)

The Chair: We all have disagreement with some of the editorialists.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, once again.

We now have before us Trevor Taylor, who is a member of the House of Assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador and the opposition fisheries critic. The floor is yours, Mr. Taylor.

Â (1200)

Mr. Trevor Taylor (Member of the House of Assembly, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to welcome the committee here to Newfoundland and thank you for the opportunity to make a few brief comments on this very important issue.

I'll start by apologizing for not having the presentation translated, and also, I don't have speaking notes. I've got a few scribbles here, but I'm more of an off-the-cuff type of fellow, I suppose. I don't know if that's good or bad, but anyway.

Mr. Chairman, as you said, I'm the opposition fisheries critic and the member for the Straits-White Bay North area on the tip of the northern peninsula, the end of the line, so to speak, when you're going north on the island. I've been elected a little over a year now, so my participation and my experience in politics, I guess, is somewhat limited in that respect. I guess my comments today will be more a reflection of my 20 years before politics. I'm not that old, but I had 20 years from when I was 13 or 14 years old working on a wharf in Quirpon on the tip of the northern peninsula as a forklift operator and a fellow with a shovel in his hand shovelling ice.

I've had a great deal of experience in the fishing industry. I worked on the deck of a boat, and for the last three years before coming into politics I was skipper of a 55-foot shrimp dragger and crab boat. I don't know if I need to say all of this stuff, but I have also been a staff representative for the FFAW, the fishermen's union here in the province, and I spent five and a half years on the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council providing advice to the minister, as you know, on groundfish stocks in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, and the eastern Arctic, and from time to time, on NAFO.

I'll start off by just referring to that. I'm a little bit disappointed in the department. I don't know whose direction this came from, but to my knowledge, unless this has changed, for the past two years the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council has been directed not to provide the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with advice on what Canada's position should be going into NAFO. It's not a big point, maybe. Canada's position going into NAFO or coming out of NAFO is widely known, but given the benefit of a somewhat independent organization, with a group of people with a variety of backgrounds, from academics to fishing industry people, looking at the information in front of them on groundfish stocks outside the 200 miles in the NAFO regulatory area, I think it's unfortunate that somebody made the decision to ask the FRCC not to provide the minister with that advice.

Mr. Chairman, back in December of 1991 I was one of the last fishermen, I guess, to bring ashore a few northern cod. We were fishing 160 to 180 miles out of here at a place called Tobin's Point. At that time we were fishing for cod and turbot. As was mentioned earlier, we saw in 1992 what was widely referred to as the biggest lay-off in Canadian history, when our fishery was closed down and roughly 40,000 people were directly affected by that action. Certainly, in the northern cod stock area itself there were 20,000 people affected directly. And we've never recovered, as a province, from that action.

We all know that our own fishermen, myself included, were partly to blame for what happened to the northern cod and every other groundfish stock around this province, but we can't bury our heads in the sand and ignore the rape and pillage outside 200 miles of all fish stocks, not just groundfish. I think we see the evidence of it now in the shrimp fishery on the Flemish Cap and, to some extent, in 3L.

I don't know how we deal with this. I know what the answer is, we all know what the answer is, and we've debated it. No offence to committee members, but I feel as if I'm participating in an exercise in futility. We had a debate in the House of Assembly just Wednesday past, private members' day, the day before yesterday, and the debate was brought forward by the member for Port de Grave. It was on extension of jurisdiction to take custodial management of the nose and tail and the Flemish Cap, a NAFO regulatory area. Tom Rideout, a former premier, former fisheries minister, and now our justice critic, first elected, I believe, in 1975, said the same thing: I feel like I'm participating in an exercise in futility. He was sick and tired of debating this type of action in this province.

I've listened with interest over the past 12 months to the debate on softwood lumber. I believe, somewhere along the way, the Prime Minister made reference--though I know he won't do it--to considering what might be done with our oil and gas exports to the United States as a result of the U.S.'s actions on softwood lumber. Regardless of who's in power--because it's got nothing to do with who's in power, it's got to do with the will of the public in this country--do we ever expect that a Government of Canada will stand up and say anything even closely resembling that kind of thing when it comes to the fishery off Newfoundland and Labrador? I think not, unfortunately. We did see some action in 1995, and it seems that the international community, when it comes to fish stocks off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, only understand gunboat diplomacy.

The Department of Foreign Affairs, concerned about any actions we might take on this front.... I don't know what to say on it. I guess those types of comments from the Department of Foreign Affairs are to be expected. As was said previously, we don't expect them to engage in anything that's going to rock the boat.

I look at the UN resolution that gives the coastal state jurisdiction over sedentary species on the shelf outside the exclusive economic zone. I don't find myself wondering why we can't assume jurisdiction and management and control over it, because I think it's right. We have a sedentary species that's there, just sitting, with very little movement, if any, in the case of scallops and crabs, and we can have jurisdiction and we can regulate those fisheries, as we did in 1996, when the two American scallop boats came up to the tail of the Grand Banks, and we went out, strutted our stuff, stopped them, and sent them back home. This past summer an American boat again, from Seattle, came out here to the tail of the Grand Banks to fish crab, and we went out again, arrested that boat, and brought it in to St. John's. I saw her tied up down to the waterfront. Of course, we all know legal work is ongoing on that front, so we don't know what the outcome will be.

Â (1205)

But we have asserted our jurisdiction. The UN has recognized that we should have jurisdiction there. The Canadian Government has recognized that we should have jurisdiction there. These are species that don't move. Scallops on the tail of the Grand Banks never show up in St. Mary's Bay unless they're aboard a boat. Cod on the tail of the Grand Banks do show up in St. Mary's Bay, and not always aboard the hold of a boat. I'm at a loss, I don't understand it. Somebody said to me the other day that the only justification they can see for it is that codfish have tails, and when they see a Spanish trawler coming, they can swim out of the way, but scallops can't.

I know it's a bit foolish for me to be making that kind of a comment, but why in the international community would anybody not recognize that a migratory fish the coastal state depends on heavily, one that goes outside the zone and is open to the abuse we've seen, should have the protection of the coastal state? I can't see it. You'd never say this at the UN, but frankly, jurisdiction over scallops outside 200 miles, while it's good, is nothing like as important to the coastal state as jurisdiction over migratory species. So I think if we have the wherewithal and the fortitude to make the arguments, there are good arguments to be made for extension of jurisdiction and assuming custodial management of the NAFO regulatory area.

It raises the question, why do we participate in NAFO? I guess we participate in NAFO because there's nothing else for us to participate in, and we go to the table because if you're not there, you don't have a say, you don't have any control. There was a time, I suppose, when Canada could, to some exten,t influence the workings of NAFO. How we did it, I don't know, because I wasn't there. But today it's obvious that we have no influence in NAFO, so why participate?

Mr. Easter, we spoke briefly before we started about a friend of mine and a person you know from Souris, P.E.I., Frank Hennessey. We spent five and a half years together on the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council. We talk usually every Friday night, and we've had the same conversation for 8 years about the fishery, because nothing much has changed on that front, the frustrations are still the same. Frank--and I apologize before saying it, as I could be a bit bold in saying this--would use a phrase when we sat around the FRCC table about NAFO, the foreign effort outside the 200 miles, and he talked about conservation. His comment was that the only thing the NAFO member states know about conservation of groundfish stocks outside the 200-mile limit is that conservation is a word in the dictionary somewhere between bullshit and greed. That's the way I see it, that's the way he saw it.

As I said, I apologize for being a little bit bold in that regard, but the facts speak for themselves. I have access to some of those papers you people have access to, the impact of catches during the last 5 years in the NAFO regulatory area. How much longer are we going to go on down with this charade? That's the question we have to ask ourselves. You are an all-party committee. I participated in an exercise this past January and February, an all-party committee to review the FPI Act. You probably heard about it; it seemed like everybody in Canada had a few shots at us on it, anyway, in the national media. Why did we go through that exercise? It wasn't just because we wanted to review the FPI Act. In large part, we went through that exercise because of a lack of resources for the fish plants that depended on those resources throughout history.

Â (1210)

The south coast plants, Marystown, Fortune, Harbour Breton, depended heavily on the cod, flatfish, redfish stocks of the southern Grand Banks, and northern Grand Banks for that matter. Why do they have concerns today? Part of what drove us to this all-party committee review was a move by FPI to modernize some of its plants, its groundfish operations, reduce its workforce. Of course, if we did have the 266,000 tonnes in northern cod we used to have, if we had the 40,000-plus tonnes of American plaice we used to have, if we had all the other stocks, in excess of 400,000 tonnes, I think, the total allowable catches of groundfish stocks surrounding Newfoundland, there wouldn't be a problem with modernization in the plants, we wouldn't have to worry about worker displacement, we wouldn't have to worry about unemployment insurance, we wouldn't have to worry about whether people are going to get enough work to qualify for unemployment insurance, because those plants for years and years worked 52 weeks of the year.

As was mentioned in the previous presentation and discussion, there are numerous plants around this province that have disappeared altogether, right here in Saint John's the National Sea plant on the south side. In Port Union, before the moratorium in 1992, there were approximately 1,400 people working either in the fish plant or on the trawlers year round. You know how many people are working in Port Union today? Roughly 120 in a shrimp operation. That's the impact the devastation of groundfish stocks has had on communities like Port Union and our population in general.

We can expect no improvement, I suggest. We see some improvement in yellowtail flounder on the southern Grand Banks, and why do we see improvement in yellowtail? I'm not sure of the exact percentage now from the scientific documents--I did look at it at one time when I was on the FRCC, because I was there when we recommended the reopening of it at 4,000 tonnes--but the vast majority of that stock exists inside the 200-mile limit. There is some spillage outside the 200-mile limit on the tail of the Banks, but a vast majority of it exists inside. It's not a sedentary species, but it has very little movement. I think the maximum they've documented in tagging is probably about a 50-mile range by individual yellowtail, which is nothing. We went from a moratorium on yellowtail in the early 1990s to a point where today the quota is 11,000 or 12,000 tonnes. It's back almost to it's historical level. Why? Because it's inside the 200-mile limit, because it's protected, because the foreigners can't get a crack at it.

Â (1220)

What's happening with 3LNO American plaice, just as an example, because it is a trans-boundary stock? No directed fishing in 1994, a NAFO moratorium from 1995 to 2002. Even under moratorium, catches have increased substantially in recent years. The scientific council estimated that catches of this stock were 1,600 tonnes, 2,500 tonnes, and 5,200 tonnes in 1998, 1999, and 2000 respectively. That's just one example of what we're seeing outside 200 miles. It is why Canada must find the fortitude to stand up and extend jurisdiction, take over management of that area, not to kick anybody out, but to set the quotas, under good scientific advice, to regulate the fishery, and to prosecute the people who don't abide by the regulations that are put in place.

I'll close up on this, Mr. Chairman. There's a Bruce Cockburn song, “When a tree falls in the forest, does anybody hear?” That's the problem. I suspect if a tree falls in the forest, nobody hears, and when a fish is caught on the tail or the nose of the Grand Banks, nobody hears. The people of this country are not engaged in what's happening down here. Unfortunately, the national media and many outside Newfoundland and Labrador, for that matter, outside Atlantic Canada, view us down here in the eastern extremity of the country very much in the same light as that in which, in the past century, mainstream society has looked on the aboriginal people: throw a bit of money at them, keep them fed, and shut them up. That's the attitude, I think, we see in mainstream society about eastern Canada, unfortunately. Until that changes and until we stand up and do what needs to be done for the fishery and Newfoundland and Labrador, we will not be able to take our rightful place and be contributors to this confederation.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor.

Before I turn to questions, I have two points. You said there was a debate in the House on this issue. Do you have the date by chance?

Mr. Trevor Taylor: Wednesday the 13th.

The Chair: I ask the clerk to get copies of that and distribute it committee members. That would be useful for our information, because you people likely said everything that's going to be said here today.

As well, you indicated at the beginning that the FRCC was directed not to provide the minister with advice to NAFO. Do you know where that direction came from and why? That really seems strange to me, because I really believe you should be providing advice.

Mr. Trevor Taylor: No, sir, I do not. As I said in my commentary earlier, I am aware of the direction not to provide the advice, but who gave that direction, I don't know. I guess, ultimately, it goes back to the minister.

The Chair: Yes. In my view, if the minister's going to a NAFO meeting, it would be very useful to sit down with the members of the FRCC, because they are, to a great extent, the industry, and have a chat about stocks and what the FRCC would be recommending. We'll find that one out.

Starting with Mr. Lunney, I'll keep everyone to five minutes, no more, in order to gain some time.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Taylor, thank you for your very clear presentation.

You mentioned being newly elected and coming from a lot of years experience in the industry. The House we represent is called the House of Commons, and I think it's very good to remember that we have people from all different walks of life in the House of Commons as well. A couple of us at the table here are also newly elected and have come in because of frustrations we see around the country.

Interestingly enough, you mentioned softwood lumber. I can tell you, the resource-based communities all across the country are hurting. The ridings that both Andy and I represent, coastal communities on Vancouver Island, are hurting as well from this. We also feel a lack of support for our issue. A year after this softwood lumber thing started, our mills are still closed down and our workers are sitting idle. So we can certainly identify with the suffering in this community. And I appreciate the support of this committee on some of the fisheries issues in my riding that were very important to people in my community, the work of this committee in trying to address those. So we have come with big ears to try to hear your concerns and do the right thing to help you.

I have two questions, basically. I'd like to know more about the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council you worked on. Wayne seemed to understand that, maybe some of the members do. Then there's another question about the cod.

Â (1225)

Mr. Trevor Taylor: The Fisheries Resource Conservation Council was announced in 1992 and finally got up and running in 1993. It's now a 15-member panel appointed by the federal minister. There is representation from throughout Atlantic Canada and Quebec from the industry, with fishermen and processing representatives on it. Actually, a fellow from out your way sat on it for quite some time--I don't think he's still there--Paul LeBlond, a professor at UBC, an oceanographer. So there's a wide range of people on the council. It provides advice on a yearly basis on approximately 46 groundfish stocks in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, and the eastern Arctic. It advises the minister from time to time on what it believes should be the department's science and funding priorities. While I was there, we used to provide the minister with advice on what Canada's position should be on NAFO-regulated stocks.

The Chair: James, if I could on that, there are reports from time to time, and there's always the annual report on stock assessment, recommendations on each groundfish stock, etc. It will be distributed to the committee, as in the past, as it becomes available. It will give you a lot of reading material when you get it. You will get that in the not too distant future.

Mr. James Lunney: I certainly appreciate the chair's picking up on the fact that with an organization created to give advice, we wonder why we're not receiving that advice.

The last question I have is a very practical one, since you have experience with the sea. Cod, as I understand, are a groundfish, and I'm thinking of the food chain. Is there a concern that part of the thing holding back the recovery of cod stocks is fishing of shrimp, or perhaps overfishing in that area?

Mr. Trevor Taylor: I'll go back a bit. A few years ago, prior to the introduction of the Nordmore grate device in the back of the shrimp trawl to select out anything bigger than a shrimp, the shrimp fishery had a big impact through by-catch on groundfish stocks. You get a lot of turbot, Greenland halibut, redfish, cod. Whatever was there, you got it, and of course it was by and large no good, because you were fishing for shrimp. But since the introduction of the Nordmore grate the amount of other species you catch in the shrimp fishery is minimal. I guess you'll hear it from them tomorrow.

One of the major constraints to stock rebuilding on the northeast coast of Newfoundland and Labrador is seals. With the seals and the foreigners, there's nobody else fishing. Those two create the fishing mortality of northern groundfish stocks. It's as simple as that. We have the seals coming at them from the north, and the foreigners coming at them from the east, so I don't know how we expect a recovery. Not in my lifetime, I suspect.

My son asked me just recently what a codfish looked like, because he wanted to draw a picture of it. He's 11 years old.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Roy.

Â (1230)

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Earlier on, Mr. Reid spoke to us about NAFO. He told us that in the end, we might have to give NAFO a last chance. Do we have to give them one last chance?

Do you agree that we should give NAFO a last chance, or do you propose out-and-out that we should withdraw and take care of stock management ourselves in the way that you have put forward, that is to say that we have shared management? Basically, do you quite simply want Canada to withdraw from NAFO and take over stock management in the area of the Grand Banks, that is to say outside the 200-mile zone?

[English]

Mr. Trevor Taylor: I think there comes a time when you have to fish or cut bait, as the saying goes, and we've reached that point. Do we give NAFO another chance? Yes, I think we do have to give NAFO another chance, but I don't expect that we'll see any improvement there.

Then you're in the unfortunate situation of what to do in the absence of participating in NAFO. If Canada is not going to extend jurisdiction and take over the management of this area, not only for Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen or Canadian fishermen but for the world, I don't really see how we can walk away, unfortunately. I believe we have to be at the table, but for what, I don't know. We're getting nothing out of it. We're participating in an organization that does nothing. It's a charade. That's it. I believe we have to continue with the charade in the absence of action by our own country.

The Chair: It's a “damned if you do and damned if you don't” kind of situation.

Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: You seem to be saying that we have no choice but to continue playing along with this charade. If we cease to be part of NAFO, how can we, as a country, give you the means to manage the stocks?

Obviously, if we withdraw from NAFO, we will no longer be able to negotiate at the international level. Do you think that we will be able to impose our perspective, our way of managing the stocks if we withdraw from NAFO?

[English]

Mr. Trevor Taylor: I think the short answer is yes, I think we can, but we have to be prepared to do what we did in 1995. If we're not prepared to do that, then we have to continue with the charade. We can manage that stock area, but we can't do it without sending boats out there to police and be prepared to bring them in, and be prepared for the Emma Boninos of the world to come down on us, and hope that at the end of the day we can persevere.

To go back to the early 1970s, people were saying you could not extend jurisdiction to 200 miles. Somebody has to do it.

As the minister said previously, we can't expect the world community to be on our side when there are only another two countries, I believe, that have a continental shelf that extends outside of their economic zone. So we wouldn't expect to have people out waving flags and supporting us. We have to act alone and be prepared for a rough ride for a while. And if we're not prepared for that, then we have to try our best to change NAFO.

In the end, I believe if we stand up and start the action, at the very least I think we would get better management out there, whether it's a combination shared management between us and the world or what we absolutely want, which is entire management on our part.

We saw changes as a result of what we did in 1995. They were fleeting, but we saw changes. They had an impact.

Â (1235)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

I might mention, just for your benefit and maybe that of the previous witnesses who were here, on February 28 we did have a presentation from DFO with Pat Chamut, who was at the NAFO meeting. To his credit, he laid out pretty directly the current situation, their synopsis that there was in fact more non-compliance by foreign fleets, etc. I thought Mr. Chamut was pretty direct at that meeting in laying out some of the problems with NAFO, and that, to a certain extent, is a first.

That was on February 28. Those minutes are available on the Internet.

Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour--Petitcodiac, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Taylor, for your presentation.

I think it was my colleague, Mr. Hearn, and Mr. Matthews as well.... Around this table you have a lot of support for the proposition. I think the status quo is not a very viable option, with the frustrations at NAFO, the obvious foreign overfishing, and the economic and social devastation that this province has seen. It's similar, I think you're right, to the softwood lumber situation in some parts of Canada, and, in the communities I represent, to the fears that fishermen have about native fishing, overfishing of stocks like lobster.

So it's a phenomenon to which we're quite sensitive. And our colleagues from Newfoundland have been, I think, very effective at making the case for this province, as have you and the minister before you.

I wish the solutions were as simple as the analysis. The problem is clear. The effects are clear. If the solutions were as clear, I think we'd all be a lot happier.

Officials of the department and of Foreign Affairs have made some effort to tell us that the United Nations Fishing Agreement, UNFA, offers some hope as a different structure or as another option to try to regulate some of this clear abuse, recognizing that some European countries talk about ratifying but have yet to do so. I recognize it's flawed a bit in the starting blocks, but officials of the department have told us they hold out some hope that UNFA may, over a medium to longer term, offer another mechanism or some more options for the Government of Canada to try to get control of some of this abuse. Do you see UNFA as holding much hope at all? Or, in your debate on Wednesday, did your colleagues in the House of Assembly address the potential of UNFA at all?

Mr. Trevor Taylor: It wasn't addressed in our debate in the House of Assembly. Certainly there was no reference to it directly, but I think there is hope there under UNFA. For one thing, it is the basis for our actions outside of 200 miles on sedentary species, so that's more than NAFO has done.

As you said, the European Union have not ratified it yet, and they make some noises or some suggestions that they will. But I really don't know what to say here. On sedentary species, the recognition that we can exercise jurisdiction there is a cause for hope. As I said in my presentation, if you recognize that the coastal state can have jurisdiction over sedentary species, I fail to see why the community that came to that conclusion wouldn't come to a similar conclusion on migratory species that the coastal state very much depends on.

Â (1240)

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Taylor, for your presentation.

You know, Bruce Cockburn also sang another song that said, “If I had a rocket launcher”. I'm sure you know how the lyrics go on that.

Trudeau said years ago that the problem with fish is that they swim. Travelling stock have always been a major problem, but you and the minister before you questioned the impact of what Tobin did in 1995, with the authorization of the firing over the Spanish vessels.

I've always questioned the impact of that. It may have made us look good and feel proud for a little while, but the reality was the ship went back, the fish went back, and we paid $100,000 to give these boys a month's vacation in the grand city of St. John's. We also had to trade off some hake off the west coast to appease the EU, to delay the court case for a while. That's really what the impact of that was.

In your presentation, you questioned the destruction--

The Chair: Peter, I'm going to question your analysis on trading off hake. You said earlier we've traded off fish for other products in central Canada, and it was made very clear to us by negotiators--

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, the perception of that was clear.

The Chair: Okay, then say perception; it's not fact.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You heard both of these folks talk about the belief central Canada has about Newfoundland. They both read the editorials; they know. They have their perception of what central Canada thinks of Newfoundland on that. That's what their presentation is saying. I'm not saying it's all reality, but that's their perception here.

We have the same feeling in Nova Scotia. We feel abandoned by the government because it's mostly centrally based. The west coast thinks that way as well. My Alliance colleagues will question that more.

But I want to get to your point about the recklessness of the environmental aspect of the waters off the continental shelf when it comes to the fisheries. In reality, as a fishing nation we also have dirt on our hands when it comes to the recklessness of our own fishing habits; our management of the stocks inside; high-grading; dumping that's going on right now, as we speak; and the playing off of one community against another in terms of fishing resources, which has been going on for a long time.

In your experience, do you honestly have the confidence that this government or the department can actually change its ways and do a very good job managing the stocks and allocating the quotas? Also, do you believe, in your dealings with FRCC, that the other nations of NAFO actually believe Canada has the wherewithal to do a proper job of what you are looking for in terms of the custodial management of the 200-mile limit and farther? Do you have confidence that we can do that?

Mr. Trevor Taylor: As you said, there's a lot of dirt on our hands. The Gulf of St. Lawrence fishery wasn't destroyed by foreigners the first time around. They kicked it pretty good in the 1960s and 1970s, but when we got into the 1980s, we did it ourselves primarily, entirely.

While high-grading and illegal actions by domestic vessels are continuing inside the 200-mile limit, we have to recognize that the fishery of today, ten years after the moratorium on northern cod, with its regulatory regime, enforcement measures, and surveillance, is vastly different from what it was in the late 1980s.

I participated in the Port-aux-Basques winter fishery one year, just before it closed down. Even then, the differences from a couple of previous years were remarkable. The misreporting of catch has basically ended, in my view.

If you look at the crab and shrimp fisheries on the northeast coast of Newfoundland--the crab fishery in particular--fishermen themselves ask the DFO to implement a 100% dockside monitoring program. The fishermen went to the department on this and brought it in themselves, and gradually it was expanded to the whole area.

We've made changes such as the Nordmore grate in the shrimp fishery. Are our hands spotless yet? No, not by a long shot. You'd have no trouble finding a log book that misrepresents a catch in this province yet, especially on crab.

We've changed a lot. We changed our fishery when we put effective surveillance programs in place, whether observer programs, dockside monitoring programs, or aircraft surveillance. If you're out on a crab ground or dragging shrimp, it's difficult to get away with saying you're in such and such a place when you're not because you could have the spars taken out of your boat any time a surveillance aircraft goes over.

We made some changes and fines are stiff these days. We can point to improvements in our system that would justify our statement that we can regulate the area outside of 200 miles in a proper manner, but we won't do a perfect job, not by a long shot.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Hearn.

Â (1245)

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thanks to Trevor for coming in.

I, too, will quote from a song, an old Kristofferson one that says the laws are for protection of the people. That's a bit of a farce, as you know. Who are the laws really protecting? Are they protecting us or are they protecting the foreigners who are wrecking our resources? That's an argument we had the other night with representatives from the Department of Foreign Affairs.

I've rolled a couple of questions into one for the sake of time, Mr. Chair.

You mentioned that people are not engaged and you're so right. Over the years, this issue has been raised on and off. Ironically, it hasn't really been discussed internationally for over 20 years.

When we talked to those people about the last time they really talked to these countries about cooperating, they said it was about 20 years ago. I said to them, “We had fish then, which we don't have now”. I'm a firm believer that there are countries who would like to continue to fish off our shores, legally, and I think we will get their support if we ask for it. But if nobody has talked to them in 20 years or explained our situation, it's pretty hard to get support.

I presume the resolution in the House was unanimous the other day. You have a federal committee drawing a lot of attention to it. A lot of individuals and agencies in this province are getting on the ball. And the industry and the union generally are all starting to speak out on this issue.

Instead of a one-shot resolution someone raised when it was appropriate, maybe it's time this was kept going and we make it an issue. If we say this collectively, we can do it. I'd like a review on this.

The other thing I'd like you to elaborate on a little bit, because it's the next issue I hope this committee will deal with, is the seal situation and how it affects our stocks.

Could you elaborate briefly on those questions?

Mr. Trevor Taylor: You brought up seals, so I'll answer your first question by making a reference to the seal hunt. The seal hunt wasn't ended in the late 70s and early 80s; it was not ended in the 80s, but it was brought to its knees by a one-shot deal from the IFAW or Greenpeace or any of the animal rights groups. The seal hunt was brought to its knees through a concerted effort over many years.

We've crawled out from under it, thanks be to God--a little bit. It's looking pretty good this year, if we can get at them.

There is no way we can, with one resolution at the House of Assembly or one committee travelling Atlantic Canada and talking to Foreign Affairs, hope to advance our mission, so to speak. We have to have a concerted effort by representatives of both levels of government, the industry, and the general public. Maybe then we will be able get the Department of Foreign Affairs a little more engaged than they are right now and we'll be able to move along.

When you go back and file your report, that's the end of it from your committee's perspective, and when I leave here today, it's the end of it from my perspective. I know it won't be the end of it for a couple of individuals who will be presenting. Gus Etchegary and others have kept this issue alive when a lot of people, because of frustration, because of the inaction, have become sick of talking about it, myself included. So that's the only hope we have, I guess, and we have to carry on there.

On seals, I think you have to look at where we see improvements in groundfish stocks and where we don't, to draw your conclusions on the effect of seals. The northern cod stock is the area that has 6 million plus seals in it, and there's no recovery. The northern and southern Gulf of St. Lawrence have minimal improvements. Why? Harp seals and grey seals. The impact of grey seals on the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence stock is well documented. The grey seal herd from Sable Island and the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence grows by 13% a year. If I'm not mistaken, the estimate in 1998 was that it consumed 40,000 tonnes of southern Gulf cod. That's a herd of a little over 100,000. We have over 6 million.

The arguments have been made. Talking about seals is like talking about foreign fishing. I'm getting sick of it. And everybody else around here is getting sick of it. Nobody listens and nobody does anything. As luck should have it, we had mad cow disease in Europe, and now we have a market for seals again. If it weren't for mad cow disease, we would probably still be struggling along at $11 a pelt. Fortunately, we're going to see $55 this year, perhaps $60.

This is the problem. It's a problem. There's no hiding from it. There's no denying it. Six million plus seals have to have an impact. As I said, if you look at the south coast of Newfoundland, where there's minimal incursion by seals, the stock was rebuilt. It dropped off a bit. It didn't rebuild as fast as we thought it would in the late nineties, but it is rebuilding. It's coming along. There are no seals. Where the seals are, there are no fish.

Â (1250)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you. I'll be brief.

Mr. Taylor, thank you.

You rhetorically asked what we get out of NAFO. In one of our briefings we received some information on that. The title of that portion of the presentation was “Role of NAFO and how it protects Canadian interests”. Now, under that heading, there are seven bullet points. I've read them very carefully while you've been giving your answers. To be generous with the presentation, out of the seven points, I can find only four that would even remotely indicate how NAFO protects Canadian interests. I'd like to put those four to you and get your comments.

First, it says overfishing is nowhere near as bad as it was in the early eighties and the nineties, and that can somehow be attributed to NAFO. Second, it says the total allowable catch of groundfish stocks are not being exceeded. Third, NAFO has generally provided assurances that total allowable catches are set in accordance with scientific advice. And fourth, it says the NAFO enforcement program is 100% observers, dockside inspections, aerial and vessel patrols, and 100% VMS. VMS--I have to go back in here to find out what that stands for--provides effective detection capacity and assurances that there is overall compliance with the NAFO total allowable catches and quotas.

This is what we're told are the advantages to Canada of our membership in NAFO and our paying $500,000 a year to help this organization in its bureaucratic efforts. Could you give me your opinion on those four supposed advantages of Canada's being a member of NAFO?

Â (1255)

Mr. Trevor Taylor: I'll start with overfishing. You have to give credit where credit is due. There's not as much overfishing now by NAFO as there was in the 1980s and 1990s. I'm being sarcastic when I say we should give credit where credit is due because in large part NAFO killed the stocks out there to such an extent that there's now not as much out there for them to overfish. That's the only reason overfishing has declined, and they have to get credit for it.

On the total allowable catches being set in accordance with science, I think we have seen some improvement there in the past four or five years. I don't believe science is being manipulated to the extent now that it was in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Scientists are thinking more for themselves now than they did at any time in the past. I could be wrong but I believe this.

As for the quotas--total allowable catches not being exceeded to any great extent--if you look at the groundfish stocks, the vast majority in these areas are under moratorium. The catches coming out of these stocks are being classified as bycatches. I have a couple of pages from the document you have. Look at annex (4). How can anybody suggest that the total allowable catches are, by and large, being complied with, when the majority of the species under moratorium are having catches such as these?

As I said, I'll go back to my reference to 3LNO American plaice again: 1,600 tonnes, 2,500 tonnes, and 5,200 tonnes in 1998, 1999, and 2000. It goes on to say the Scientific Council is concerned that much of this catch is not truly bycatch, but rather is occurring as a result of direct fishing.

I think it would be a complete inaccuracy to say that quotas are not being exceeded on the groundfish stocks. On shellfish, we also see evidence of misreporting of catch on shrimp. I doubt this one is all that factual.

On the enforcement program, the number of charges we know about and the level of prosecution speaks for itself. To my knowledge, in the fall of 1999, just before Christmas, actually--and the reason I know that is because I was attending a Christmas party in Corner Brook and a friend of mine, who was a fisheries officer on the Leonard J. Cowley, was supposed to be there. You might remember that they escorted a Portuguese vessel to the Azores.

We didn't get anything out of this. The boys on the Leonard J. Cowley had a couple of nights in the Azores and a trip back across the ocean on a plane; we didn't get anything.

I'm not sure if I answered your questions.

The Chair: Is that the end of your questions, Tom?

Peter, you had a short question. Please make it very short. Then I'll go to Bill Matthews.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm not sure if you had a chance to read a report we did a couple of years ago on seals. If you haven't, I'd recommend you do.

Also, you just said that science is not as manipulated as it once was. What do you mean by that?

Mr. Trevor Taylor: Well, there's lots of well-documented evidence that during the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Scientific Council of NAFO was very much influenced. Basically, the individual scientists went to the Scientific Council with a political agenda. They were representatives of their governments and their fishing industries. That's not to say they weren't scientists who did research--and maybe the research was good. But when they got to the table, under the guise of science, they lobbied for quotas that were exceedingly far above where the levels should have been.

There has been some improvement in this in recent years. By and large, the recommendations of the Scientific Council speak for themselves, as you can see with its recommendation on turbot. Its continual recommendations over the past number of years for moratoriums suggest to me that it now thinks for itself, as opposed to thinking for its governments.

· (1300)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a brief comment on the problem with seals. It was quite interesting to hear Trevor's take on that.

After hearing his revelation about having made a trip just prior to the shutdown of the northern cod fishery, and then having heard him say he participated in one of the last trips to Port-aux-Basques in the winter fishery, Dominique and I were thinking that perhaps we should put Trevor Taylor out hunting seals; then we'd take care of the problem with seals.

An hon. member: But he went into politics.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes, he went into politics. Maybe we do have an answer for seals; it's for Trevor to get involved in the seal fishery.

But on a more serious note, Mr. Chairman, mine is not a question; it's more a comment or an observation. I'm sure some people are wondering what we're doing here as a committee and why we're here. The committee's coming to the province to hear evidence and to hear presentations, such as we're doing for the next two days, is an important part of the process

After that, the committee will be severely challenged--that's probably the word. Then as a committee we really have to fully engage the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and ultimately the Prime Minister on this issue if we're really going to make progress. I know some people are probably a little skeptical as to the process, why we're here, what the end result will be. But the challenge for the committee will certainly be to involve the two ministers and the Prime Minister in a very important way in this issue.

I feel very comfortable with my work with this group over the last few years. This committee is very committed to doing that. We had to come here to raise the profile, to hear the evidence. I know what the Newfoundland appetite is for this issue, but I just wanted to make this observation on what we have to do after this.

The Chair: Thank you, Bill.

Following on that, sometimes some people in Ottawa wish this committee would just go away, but we will do our work and come up with some tough recommendations. You can be assured of that.

Are there any last comments, Mr. Taylor, that you want to make?

· (1305)

Mr. Trevor Taylor: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I take no credit for the demise of the groundfish stock around Newfoundland. I spent my time on the deck of the boat at the time, but the skipper was in the wheelhouse. I also have a couple of broken ribs to show from my participation in the seal hunt. My task at present is to eliminate the Liberal government from this province. Anyway, that's a bit of a joke.

I thank the committee for coming here today and taking up this very important issue. I know you know it's going to be very difficult to advance this cause, and I hope you have great success in your meeting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and ultimately the Prime Minister.

There are no easy solutions and no quick fixes to anything in the fishery around Newfoundland and Labrador, or any fishery for that matter. But you'll never get down a long road without taking the first step, and we have to collectively become more engaged, myself included, in this issue. There's a lot at stake. There's the cost of action, but the cost of inaction has been more than this province has been able to absorb.

Our population, as was referenced earlier, is at a 40-year low, I believe. We cannot survive on this rock without fish. That's the bottom line.

We can talk about tourism, pulp and paper mills, Voisey's Bay, Churchill Falls, and all of that stuff, but the bottom line is, to the fellow from Gunners Cove like myself, none of it means anything without a cod fishery, or some kind of fishery. That has been our reason for being for more than 500 years, and I suspect it'll be our reason for being for the next 500 years.

I'll conclude by saying thank you for coming here today. I wish you every success.

· (1310)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Taylor, for your presentation and your responses.

We will take a break for three minutes and then hear from Mr. Jim Morgan, if he's in the room.

.1305

.1319

The Chair: We now welcome Mr. Morgan, the spokesperson for the Newfoundland and Labrador Rural Rights and Boat Owners Association. Thank you for taking the time to come. The floor is yours.

Mr. Jim Morgan (Spokesperson, Newfoundland and Labrador Rural Rights and Boat Owners Association): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I've been involved in the fishing industry in this province since I fished with my father, as a boy, in Bonavista Bay. I then spent 18 years in the House of Assembly representing a major fishing area of the province. I was Minister of Fisheries for the province for about six years. Since getting away from politics, I've been active in a volunteer organization called the Rural Rights and Boat Owners Association, which represents a number of thousands of people in the rural areas of our province.

I've also been actively involved in the business sector of the fishing industry. I spent about 12 years as head of a marketing company internationally, around the world, and travelled extensively in the Far East and around Europe.

Having said that, I want to say, first of all, I'm not sure why we should have appeared this morning, because I'm so frustrated at what's been going on over the years in the fishing industry. I know you're all sincere individuals. I'm not going to question your sincerity, but as a Newfoundlander, I'm sick and tired of seeing committees and studies and reports on our fishery, in Newfoundland in particular, and seeing no action.

I've appeared before your committee--not the same members--over the years, maybe three or four times, as a minister, as a politician, and now in a volunteer organization. But it seems to me that your reports sometimes, though well written and well presented, with some good recommendations....

I recall that George Baker came down a few years ago. He travelled the province as a chairman of the fisheries committee. There were numerous representations and presentations made. He made a good report, in my view, but the problem is that the reports are not listened to. Your reports are not listened to. If it's going to go on deaf ears to the ministers responsible for making decisions, whether it be External Affairs or Fisheries, what's it all about? What's the use of it?

This morning I said to myself, shall I appear or not? I said yes, I will, because maybe we can keep talking, as Mr. Trevor Taylor said. But the fact is that we have nothing to do but talk. That's all we can do as Newfoundlanders. The jurisdiction, the fisheries, is totally controlled by the federal level, the national level of government. Just recently a Supreme Court decision, nine to nothing, said, and I read:

...the fisheries power includes not only conservation and protection, but also the general “regulation” of the fisheries, including their management and control .

That was from the Supreme Court, based on a case before the courts involving the selling of a seal industry product.

Section 91.12 of the Constitution Act, 1867, refers to the fisheries as a resource of national or provincial wealth, a common property resource to be managed for the good of all Canadians.

We tried to get through the government a number of years ago some shared jurisdiction, to have our province have a little bit of a say on our most important industry in Newfoundland, in rural areas in particular, but it was not listened to. It came from the level of the premier of this province and me, as the Minister of Fisheries.

Maybe Quebec is right in what they have. They have some say over their fisheries, delegated way back when by the national level of government. But we have no say, no say over our most important industry.

This morning I want to comment on within the 200-mile limit first, before I get involved in the problems outside.

There has been no meaningful consultation over our province's industry by the national level of government. I'm not going to be political this morning. I'm not aspiring to any political office. I'm now no longer a politician and have no aspirations. But the fact is, no matter what party is in power in Ottawa, what stripe, it seems to be the same. They ignore our views. They ignore our recommendations. They don't give us meaningful consultation.

Back in 1992, when the minister of the day had to close down the cod fishery in this province, the ground fishery, we thought for sure it was time for the national level of government to say, we're going to do something to determine what's happening to the fish stocks on the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. Since then, what have we seen? We've seen the budgetary process coming into place and cutting back on surveillance work, cutting back on scientific research work, cutting back on the coast guard, and all of these things. How many times do we have to listen to the national FRCC, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, saying “Dear Minister”--they make recommendations to the minister, not to your committee; they're appointed by the national level of government--saying, “Please put in adequate moneys to carry out adequate scientific research on the fish stocks”? How often do we have to hear them say that, again in the last report, and the time before and the time before that, but still all we see are cutbacks and the lack of adequate scientific research being done on these stocks within the 200-mile zone?

Then I hear the provincial minister this morning. I take strong exception to what he's talking about, the Government of Canada taking custodial management. The Government of Canada today can't even carry out adequate scientific research within the 200-mile zone we have now, let alone going out and taking over custodial management outside our 200-mile economic zone on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and on the Flemish Cap, and then, to carry out surveillance...?

When I hear reports that the existing surveillance ships we have now within the 200-mile zone don't have adequate budgets to pay for fuel to go out and do surveillance.... Custodial management? What nonsense.

The fact is, it has all come to light again. People like Gus Etchegary, who was here in the hall, and others have been talking about it. I've been talking about it over the years. We're talking about the same thing we've talked about for scores of years, back to the early 1970s: overfishing by foreigners.

The new minister a few days ago said we'll have to work diplomatically, toward the next NAFO meeting in Spain, on the problems we're having with NAFO being unable to control the straddling stocks on the edge of the continental shelf. Work diplomatically.

Gentlemen, there's no question Newfoundlanders are frustrated now to the point of saying, “Government, never mind talking and talking and talking. We need action.” Action must come, before we see the total destruction of rural Newfoundland--the outport communities.

A report a few days ago in the print media listed the communities--a lot of them are fishing communities--that have lost 10%, 12%, 15%, and 18% of their populations since 1996. We've lost 40,000 Newfoundlanders. They've moved away from the province because of the lack of action on our fisheries.

So it's not good enough to keep talking about custodial management and being diplomatic at the next meeting of NAFO in Spain. NAFO has not been acting adequately to protect our stocks. Since 1992, despite the fact Newfoundlanders were on a moratorium, I would go so far as to say hundreds of thousands of metric tonnes have been taken by foreigners from the edge of the continental shelf, of the same species we had a moratorium on: cod.

It's time to take some action, not talk, talk, talk. You'll come back again in five years--maybe some members who are here will be here again with the committee--and we'll still be saying the same thing, looking for recommendations.

I listened to members of the committee this morning talk about the reports you got from the Department of External Affairs and even from DFO. They're so negative on all of this. Don't talk about extending the 200-mile limit. Don't even talk about custodial management.

A few weeks ago I attended a conference and Mr. Legault--maybe you know him, he's the architect of NAFO--took part in that discussion and Mr. Lapointe, who I think is employed by External Affairs. They're fine gentlemen, but their viewpoints are so diplomatic, it's not going to work.

I say to you this morning one of the most important things is to take away the perception around the world, and in the EU in particular, of our country as being weak. We're pussycats. We don't show any strength. We want to go back and talk diplomatically in Spain. Forget that. Take some action now to protect a vital resource that is controlled by the federal level of government. But take some action to protect it. There's one way to do it. You hit home where it hurts. You do something to those foreign fishing nations and foreign fishing fleets that's going to hurt them.

I read a report you did a little while ago. I had to refer to it. I'm always skeptical of reports. You did two good reports just recently--I don't know who got you going on them. I won't get involved in the infrastructure, but there was the report on shrimp.

We had 3,000 Newfoundlanders unemployed last summer--markets were down, in general--because there was a 20% tariff going into the European Community. We had to sit by, as Newfoundlanders, and watch the foreign vessels coming into places like Harbour Grace, Carbonear, Argentia, and St. John's, after catching shrimp on the Flemish Cap, bringing it in, transshipping it to reefer containers, and going into the marketplace in competition with our product.

The same people who were granted 30,000 metric tonnes fished 60,000 metric tonnes near our own 200-mile zone, approximately 100 miles off on what is known as the Flemish Cap. And we're letting them do it.

They come into ports--and my understanding is there's no inspection by Customs, there's no inspection by the fisheries officers, and there's no inspection by the RCMP. They just come into port, and in some cases they even abandon the vessels.

Just recently, an American company chartered two foreign vessels. I don't know the exact state they were registered to; they looked like Russian vessels. They were in port, and an American company had chartered them to fish shrimp. Once they unloaded the shrimp and took it into the marketplace, got their profit and their money, they abandoned them. They had to depend on the goodwill and charitable view of Newfoundlanders to give them food and fuel to keep them, to my knowledge. There's a man here who might know more than I do--Mr. Efford. That's his area out there--John Efford, a former Minister of Fisheries. But they abandoned them. Surely, the Government of Canada can stop that kind of nonsense.

I want to go further. If you want to stop any foreign fishing nation that doesn't abide by the conservation rules set down by NAFO, of which Canada is a member.... And I strongly disagree with withdrawing from NAFO, as the Minister of Fisheries for our province talked about this morning. You'll have a free-for-all out there and no participation from Canada. Don't do that. Don't withdraw. At least there's some possibility of getting something done by staying in there. But close the ports to any foreign nation that is not abiding by the rules of conservation set down by NAFO and agreed upon by Canada.

If they don't obey the rules, don't let them come in and get the services--their fuels and their water and food supplies--and in particular, don't let them unload their product to transship, which makes money for them, to go into the marketplace in competition with our product. That's one way of acting now.

The other way is to use the legislative framework you have in place as the national level of government. When--I guess I'll call him my friend--Brian Tobin took action as a federal minister and brought the Estai into the Port of St. John's and the rest of it, a ray of hope appeared in Newfoundland, because finally we had an action taken by the Government of Canada that was going to benefit the whole thing.

That sort of backfired on us as a country, and then we had to agree to this so-called 100% observer going aboard the vessels, as mentioned by Mr. Wappel, I think. In the report from the people in NAFO, everything was working fine--a report from the officials at that level that everything was working fine. Yet now we have a 100% observer program. But these observers report to themselves. How foolish! How silly to have observers aboard foreign ships who report to themselves.

As mentioned by a previous speaker this morning, there was an incident where a vessel was arrested at sea, so-called, taken back over to Azores, and never a charge laid. Never a charge laid! So they're laughing at Canada. They're laughing at us from the EU in particular.

I say we can't wait 10 to 15 years. I talk to diplomatic bureaucrats in Ottawa by phone, and they say if you want to extend the jurisdiction, it's going to take 10 to 15 years. Gentlemen, we as Newfoundlanders can't wait 10 to 15 years. We just can't wait.

The stocks are gone inside the 200-mile zone primarily because of the mismanagement of the government that controlled the jurisdiction. Both stripes in power didn't properly manage our resources inside the 200-mile zone. There's all kinds of evidence to prove what I'm saying. They didn't manage it properly, and now we see the decimation of our stocks on the edge of the continental shelf by foreigners, and the Government of Canada seems to be sitting back watching it happen. It's going to be nothing short of devastation to the rural areas of Newfoundland, to the fishing communities, and evidence has just passed around of a census report from a few days ago that it's happening now.

I've often posed the question--as a previous politician and now--of whether the federal level of government really cares what is happening in rural Newfoundland. I'm not so sure they really care. I have to hit the point of the adjacency policy, which has been, in principle, a policy in place all the while I was Minister of Fisheries, and maybe for as long as the fisheries have existed in Newfoundland.

When I see Ottawa making a move to move a resource from our waters--and I want to refer to the decision to transfer a shrimp quota from this province to P.E.I. a couple of years ago. We were led to believe it was only a three-year temporary transfer, but, gentlemen, seriously.... Then I hear the new minister saying, “Oh well, look, the situation now is that a dependency has been created by the P.E.I. people on this stock.” What did we have? Didn't we have a dependency for years on the stocks adjacent to our waters? Surely we did. Now the new minister is saying unless he gets compelling reasons to change that move of shrimp from our waters to another province, it won't be cancelled; it will become a permanent deal. That's my view of it.

The previous speaker said we've got seals coming from the north and the foreigners coming from the east. We've also got others coming at us from the west who want our resources, and I refer to the new panel now set up by the federal government. It's going to bring about recommendations and proposals on the access and allocation of fish stocks on our coasts of Newfoundland. Do you know what the unfortunate part is? Poor old Newfoundland has nobody on that panel. There's nobody there, nobody to speak up for Newfoundland or be involved in the recommendations of that panel. It's a worrisome thought to me as a Newfoundlander what that panel is going to recommend to the Minister of Fisheries with regard to allowing other people access to stocks along our coasts and whether or not the adjacency policy will be completely thrown out the window.

I mentioned the lack of money for research and the lack of money for surveillance since 1992. Our infrastructure.... You made a report just recently, and I commend you for it. It was a great report, the fifth report. A little bit of progress was made.

We have wharves and breakwaters falling into the water. The need right now is $100 million in Newfoundland alone to take away or repair the unsafe conditions of infrastructure. What are we going to get? We're going to get a little bit. Maybe my good friend from St. John's West was a pusher of that, and maybe Bill Matthews as well. But the fact is we're only going to get $5 million to $6 million in the next five years. My God, what an insult to Newfoundlanders again: over the next five years, $5 million to $6 million for infrastructure facilities around our coastline that are falling down, unsafe, and need to be upgraded in a desperate way.

So all we've seen over the years are cutbacks. The reason I'm here today is because in our organization the small boats...and many of these boats are commercial, not just recreational boats. The small boats have been looking for something to keep them alive. The cod is gone. There's no cod to catch. The species of crab and shrimp are there, so they want to get into the crab, but they're issued only little permits to go fishing for crab--permits. Despite the fact that two former senior officials of DFO, namely, Dr. Art May, a former deputy minister, and Mr. Eric Dunne, who was head of DFO in Newfoundland, made a report for the minister last year.... To my knowledge, that report recommended that these inshore boats below 35 feet--which is vitally important to small communities along the coastline of Newfoundland--would in fact be given licences. Oh, no. Despite that report--and I want to go back to my opening statement--and studies and more studies and hearings of this nature, nobody wants to listen in Ottawa, and that's what the frustrations are all about with regard to our industry in this province, which is so vitally important.

I recall a few years ago that my friend, who is now going to be running to become an MP for an area--a good Liberal. I'm a good PC but I support him. Having said that, I recall that he is similar to me as an individual: we're pretty outspoken on fisheries matters. You know, Gus Etchegary has more knowledge of fisheries than I'll ever have, I guess, and we've been speaking up and speaking out, but the frustrations of seeing nothing happening.... I remember John Efford taking an all-party committee from the House of Assembly before the fisheries standing committee at the House of Commons in Ottawa on the issue of seals. My goodness gracious, Newfoundlanders were all excited. Maybe something was going to happen. What year was that? Three or four years ago? Nothing. Nothing is happening.

I don't want to go on and on because you may have some questions to pose to me, but I want to say that diplomatic negotiations have failed immensely. NAFO was an organization that failed desperately in controlling and managing the stocks on the edge of our continental shelf. We cannot wait. We cannot keep on talking. We, in Newfoundland, will keep on talking, but we can't take any action because it's not our jurisdiction.

Surely, you, in your work--and I'm not questioning the sincerity of this committee, not at all--when you get down to making a report, look at information you've gathered from External Affairs and the diplomatic side of things, look at the resolutions passed in the House of Assembly a few days ago.... And by the way, I think that was the fifth or sixth resolution on the fisheries passed in the House of Assembly unanimously by all parties involved and sent to Ottawa over the years with regard to overfishing, and still there's been no action. We're going to be here talking again today.

I'm going to close my opening comments by saying that I think maybe, Jim Morgan, you're too emotional; you're too involved. You see what's happened to Newfoundlanders and you get so excited about it. But, gentlemen, I travel the rural areas of this province an awful lot. That's where the membership of our organization is. They are crying out, and I'm using my voice for them today and I'm crying out to say, please, if you can, be influential with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Minister of International Trade.

Before I forget, I note your report on the shrimp issue said:

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans therefore urges the Government of Canada to attach great importance to this matter.

Notwithstanding Standing Order 109, the Committee requests that the Government table a comprehensive response to this report within 90 days.

That was done in October.

The shrimp fishery is starting soon. It is vitally important now with the cod gone. I'd like to know if the Government of Canada, the ministers and the cabinet, did table a report back to you people saying what they were going to do. To my knowledge, nothing has been done. If they're going to say they're going to do something, maybe they are, but there's no evidence here in Newfoundland.

I'm going to say in closing that a tremendous resource was brought into Confederation in 1949. That big resource has been mismanaged to the point that now it's practically gone, especially the groundfish. We see little or no action except talk, talk, talk.

I'm going to make a controversial statement. The gentleman here from Quebec--I don't know what his politics are; I guess he's Bloc Québécois, I don't know--has taken a stand over the years about Confederation and what role his province has in Confederation. I'll say today, as a sincere Newfoundlander who's been around for a while on fisheries and other matters, maybe it's a time for us, as Newfoundlanders, to look at our role in the Confederation of Canada because of the manner in which we've been treated over the years by the government. We've been ignored by this government, which has total jurisdiction over this major resource, and it's letting us down in a bad way. Unless we see something happening over the next little while, it will even let us down further and we'll have no stocks at all, whether on the edge of the continental shelf or inside the 200-mile limit, and we'll have no economy in the rural areas of our province.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Morgan, for your forceful presentation.

On the report of the committee on shrimp, I believe it was tabled in late November or early December. We asked that the government respond in 90 days. Under the rules of the Parliament of Canada, it really has six months, but we are hopeful it will respond in 90 days.

Turning to questions, Andy Burton.

Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank you for your presentation. You're obviously a very dedicated and committed Newfoundlander, as I'm a very dedicated and committed west coaster. We're all Canadians at the same time.

I do appreciate your concerns and your frustrations. I think it's fair to say that the western part of Canada has a lot of similar frustrations when it comes to dealing with central Canada and Ottawa. I think that's probably why Mr. Lunney and I are here. Our frustrations came to the top and we're trying to deal with some of them, and it's very difficult.

I have a very quick question because I do want to give most of the time to the members from the east coast. I think they deserve that. This is their area and their big concern.

You obviously feel the federal government, DFO, has not managed these stocks properly. I think that's very clear. What would you propose? Are you looking at Newfoundland taking over management? How would you propose to deal with these problems? Can you expand on that a bit?

Mr. Jim Morgan: I recall that when we made the presentation, and the premier of the day made the presentation at the constitutional meeting involving Prime Minister Trudeau at the time, we wanted a shared jurisdiction formula put in place whereby the province would have some say over local issues in particular. We never did say we wanted to take over the surveillance of the 200-mile limit. We as a province don't want to deal with international issues as we're talking about today, but to have some say over setting of quotas, some say over the licensing of fishermen. This is very similar to what's now taking place in the province of Quebec. They have that kind of authority.

We never did say give us total jurisdiction over the fishery. We're not naive. I don't think anybody in this room is naive enough to think we could do that. But we want to have a say.

This is along similar lines to what's happening with the offshore oil and gas resources. At least there's meaningful input from the province, whereas right now we have no meaningful input. The minister can come down here and listen to the input of the fishermen's union, of the minister as he appeared this morning, of the opposition parties, etc., but there's no meaningful consultation. He'll leave and go back and make arbitrary decisions, against the wishes of the people who made presentations to him, involving especially the fishermen's union, a strong union.

I'm not sure if they want to appear or not. Are they going to appear before the committee?

The Chair: Yes, tomorrow.

Mr. Jim Morgan: Well, they can speak for themselves. A lot of the issues I've addressed this morning I'm sure are similar issues to what they're concerned about.

To answer your question, we want some kind of a meaningful input situation. We use the term “shared jurisdictions”. That was laughed at by the government of the day and by the then opposition party in Newfoundland: “Oh no, we can't get involved in that”. Right now, the thought of having some kind of shared jurisdiction with the national level of government over fisheries along our coastline is more meaningful than ever before.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Burton.

Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Mr. Morgan, I will not ask you any questions. I simply wanted to thank you for your presentation, and to tell you that it was very convincing and most interesting. That is the message I wanted to leave with you.

I also wanted to say that if you wish to undertake shared management, it will not necessarily be easy because it was not necessarily easy for Quebec either.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Roy.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Morgan, that's one of the better presentations I've seen in a while. Thank you very much.

As a former minister, are you aware of any other areas in the ocean around the world where there are organizations such as NAFO off a particular country? We have NAFO looking at the 200-mile limit, but are there any other areas around the world--Australia, Africa, Europe, America, wherever--where there are similar organizations? Are you aware?

Mr. Jim Morgan: No, I'm not. I'm not aware, no.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, you're not. I didn't think so. It seems rather ironic that we have countries from Asia and other areas like that basically advising Canada on how to handle these fish stocks when they're actually coming through our front door. I agree with you.

The question of the wharves you had mentioned. The estimates this year put wharves and dredging and all that only at $20 million for the country. You had mentioned that you would need $100 million just for Newfoundland. It seems quite shocking that this particular--

The Chair: Peter, that's additional money. That's new money, $20 million on top of what was already there.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, precisely. But they're talking about all of it, and the whole premise of it was.... I'm getting back to what he said about the controversial statement about rethinking Confederation. I'd like him to elaborate on that, because it's not just Newfoundlanders who think that. Nova Scotians are thinking that regarding the oil and gas reserves, and the west has been thinking about that for quite a while.

I'd like you to elaborate on the fact that in small rural parts of Newfoundland, the economy.... They keep talking about the economy of Newfoundland leading the way in the country at 3% or 4%. That's good for St. John's, but it's not really good for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I'd like you to elaborate on exactly what these families are going through and what they're saying to you in terms of their belief of what Canada is doing for them.

Mr. Jim Morgan: You know, that's the rather unfortunate part today. Other parts of Canada don't understand, with all due respect to the members of this committee, the real outport rural Newfoundland. They look at reports coming from this province that our gross provincial product is going up every year because of our export value, but our export value is coming from the barrels of oil coming off Hibernia in particular, and now with Terra Nova coming on and the White Rose.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: And shellfish.

Mr. Jim Morgan: Yes, and the other issue is there's fish leaving our province not processed.

But getting back to the export value and our gross provincial product, the impression is left to the rest of Canada that everything is fine in Newfoundland, everything is going fine, that the gross provincial product is fine and the economy is growing. But the economy is not growing. There's a report that just went around the table--it was in the Telegram printed yesterday--with an example of communities. I understand the mayor of Burgeo is going to appear today. He'll enlighten you people from the perspective of living out in Burgeo.

Along the northeast coast, which I travel a lot, the communities are devastated--I mean devastated--to the point that all you're going to find around, and I think it was mentioned briefly this morning by the minister or by Mr. Taylor, you just find houses boarded up. You go up and talk to the one house that's open, and what do you have? An old couple. And you get talking to them and you find tears come in their eyes because their sons and their daughters and grandsons and grandchildren are all moved away because they were involved in the fishing industry. Next door is the fish plant that was once open and is now closed. There are no jobs there at all. And on we go around the coastline--just devastating.

The people in Ottawa, with all due respect--the members here are very sincere, I know, I've worked with both of them in the provincial caucus--they can bring forward the best way they can their views, but it's great to have other politicians here, and I say that sincerely, from other parts of Canada, to come in and maybe listen to people like this morning and tomorrow, to get an understanding of what's happening to our province. They're doing their best to make the views known across Canada and to other members of Parliament about what's happening in Newfoundland. It's devastating. People are just throwing up their hands and saying “What do we do?”

Mr. Chairman, I know you're of the party stripe. You have to understand that your recommendations are going to the minister. You have influence with your minister. I'm sure you do, as chairman of a committee. But it's very important for you to take back this view of the situation, which you'll hear from me and others, on behalf of the people out in the outports of Newfoundland: show us some leadership and properly manage that resource over which you have total control.

You're not going to give any jurisdiction or pass it on. When the gentleman spoke in French, he said it was difficult to get this kind of a role for the province over the years. I'm inclined to agree--difficult. I don't see anything changing with regard to jurisdiction, the Government of Canada giving us any additional control. But they have control.

This committee is very important for getting our views to the ministers. Unless they're going to sit by and watch the destruction of a way of life for rural communities--and I mentioned the decimation of the stocks.... Senior citizens left alone will be all we'll have left along the coastline and people coming in to buy up cheap properties left by those who had to leave the fishing industry and sell their houses, worth anywhere from $25,000 to $40,000, for a few pennies, a few dollars.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Jim, if I may interject, if you were the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and had that power, what would be the one thing you would do tomorrow?

Mr. Jim Morgan: I would announce that before any meeting of NAFO takes place in Spain, before Canada participates.... I don't agree with the idea of withdrawing from NAFO, the Newfoundland government's position. I don't agree with trying to get custodial management of the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. It'll take 10 to 15 years; it'll probably take 20. It'll be too late.

Canada should show some authority and power. No longer will we take what's been happening to us on the edge of the continental shelf. It should take some action.

I give credit to the new minister for saying he would consider the possibility of closing ports, not just in Newfoundland but all Canadian ports, to the culprits, let's call them, out there overfishing and in violation of the rules set down by NAFO. If they're in violation, close ports to them.

I'm hoping he'll do more than consider this. I'm hoping he'll take action before the meeting in Spain. If this committee is going to listen to the viewpoints of the diplomats--the autocrats and bureaucrats--and make a report to the minister to say we should keep on having diplomatic talks and making our Canadian views and opinions known to the people in the EU, it's not going to work.

So close the ports. Take some action that is going to hurt those people who are doing damage to our stocks. That's the first step the minister should take today, and he should do it before any of the shrimp starts coming in from the Flemish Cap.

I have to ask again if you can imagine the scene I witnessed last summer when I met with a whole group shrimp fishermen. They were sitting down on a wharf and watching those big factory freezers come into port and unload their product of shrimp. It was put aboard a reefer container, shipped out to Halifax and over to the markets in Europe by way of Maersk or one of those lines; and they were here, the fishermen, and could not fish because the plants couldn't purchase shrimp from the fishermen and open up and process it because of the tariffs and the poor markets in the EU. Can you imagine that?

The Chair: Mr. Morgan, I want to come in on this point. I'll go to you in a second, Bill.

You've been fairly aggressive and I don't disagree. I agree wholeheartedly with you. In fact, the committee made a recommendation, as you've read earlier, that the minister take this kind of action, close ports to transshipment, to fueling, to water, etc., if we aren't getting a positive response from some of these fleets out there. You made the statement earlier that we need to take away the perception of Canada's being weak, of Canadians being pussycats. I agree wholeheartedly with you on this.

I fought the potato wart issue in Prince Edward Island. The Americans closed their borders over it. Instead of retaliating and closing ours back, we negotiated. And we have an industry that is still on its butt as a result of us not having taken strong action. Those statistics you passed around are absolutely startling.

I come from an agricultural background, and I heard somebody say something about the Wheat Board, about the illusion that we negotiate things away in Newfoundland to the advantage of maybe the west. That's not the case. All rural areas are suffering. There's been 26% less employment in agriculture in the last three years--the largest drop in 35 years.

So we all, in the natural resource sector, have the same problem, and this is that the Government of Canada does not seem to have the backbone, I guess would be the diplomatic word to use, to stand up and take action. How do we achieve that? I think that's what's fundamental here. How do we manage to convince my colleagues? Yes, the minister made that statement. He is a new minister.

I would be worried as we go down the road further. We met with DFAIT the other night, and there are 16 reasons why you can't take action. I face the same thing in agriculture in P.E.I. How do we convince the powers that be, regardless of the political stripe in Ottawa, to have the backbone to stand up and take the kind of action needed to protect our natural resources, be it fish, be it agriculture, and over our jurisdictions? Do you have any suggestions?

Mr. Jim Morgan: There's the one I mentioned earlier about the closing of ports, and I'm pleased to hear you say that your recommendation has been made on that point. I think your recommendation was made along the point of the shrimp issue. But I think you should do it with regard to the overfishing aspect that we're now discussing. It's the same thing.

But there's also a legislative framework you have, which Brian Tobin as Minister of Fisheries used back in 1995. Whether it was used effectively, I'm not going to comment, because it seemed to fail in the end. But there was a pretty powerful position put forward by Canada: we're not going to tolerate this any more; we're going to arrest the vessels. And they arrested the vessels. But if you don't mind me saying, it fell apart after the vessel was arrested. The vessel went back and we had to pay all the costs, etc., and we lost that case.

But if there's a legislative framework in place and it can be used, and if the Government of Canada gets proof again, within the next two months in particular, prior to the meeting in Spain, the minister should use it again. We used it once, but I'm afraid the diplomatic people in Ottawa are going to do all they can to persuade the ministers not to do it.

I heard one, I think it was Mr. Legault--he was the real architect of NAFO--saying we shouldn't do it and we should take the so-called culprits to the international court. That's a great field day for the lawyers; they'll make a fortune. The legal profession will make a fortune. But it could go on and on, and we're not going to get anything done, so we can't wait for that.

You see, I keep using that air of frustration and impatience, and that's the feeling amongst Newfoundlanders today: we're impatient and frustrated. We want to see something now. Don't just drag it on with talks, with talk of international court and talk of custodial management, because that's not going to be the answer. It'll be too late. I want to emphasize that: it'll be too late if it takes 10 to 15 years.

The Chair: I don't want to get into the debate. It's not my purpose as chair. But we have the same thing right across the country, with softwood lumber, with the potato issue in P.E.I.; it's the same thing. The greenhouse tomato issue with the United States is another case. There are the fisheries issues in the NAFO area, the Flemish Cap, and the nose and tail. We have all these issues about which I think many of us think the Government of Canada should take a much harder line than it is. We all seem to be operating in isolation. Newfoundland is operating in isolation on fish and saying the west gets the benefit.

My question relates to how we're going to pull this together. We all have the same problem, and that's not standing up tough enough and saying to the U.S., and other NAFO countries, that we're not going to allow this to happen any more. That's where we have to go.

I don't have the answer, but there must be some way of pulling all these resource industries together to put on the political heat to do the job. We're trying to do our part, but I think that's where it's at.

Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to thank Mr. Morgan for his presentation this morning--a very passionate presentation. I want to thank him for that.

Your comments about what's happening in rural Newfoundland are certainly so true: the out-migration, the age of the people left there. In many of the communities I represent, the local municipalities, the local governments, are getting to a point where they soon won't be able to offer those people who are left the basic services they deserve and require. That's just how serious it is in rural Newfoundland, for members of the committee. It's very, very serious. I wonder how much longer many of those local governments can continue to manage and govern their communities and offer the basic services that people need there. Of course, we're talking about an aging population, and we all know what comes with that. I guess it requires more detailed service, and so on, for obvious reasons: people are aging.

So it's just that serious. That's what this issue means to us as a people and to us as a province. It goes back to the question the chairman has asked. For us it's fish; for us it's rural communities. For other parts of the country it's agriculture, and so on.

Mr. Morgan, I want to zero in for a moment on your comments on shared jurisdiction. In the provincial legislature here a few years ago we had several debates on that issue. I always took the position that we should push for greater control; we should push for greater management. The premier of the day particularly, former Premier Wells, argued constantly with me--at that time I was the fisheries critic in the province--that the province could not afford it. My retort to him consistently was, “Mr. Premier, we can't afford not to.” I think we're seeing the fruits of that today. Because there has not been enough strong and good management over those resources, we're talking about the things that you and I are talking about today: the very survival of the people in the communities is pretty close to the spinal cord of breaking.

I just want to ask you about the shared jurisdiction comment you made. You said a former premier pushed this issue and so on. Your thoughts on shared jurisdiction: would it be the province participating wholeheartedly in management, in deciding the science, in making the management decisions and participating financially? I want to try to get my mind around your concept of shared jurisdiction.

Mr. Jim Morgan: It came about primarily because the province felt there was no meaningful consultation on the fisheries policies. We were always of the opinion in Newfoundland, and I think all stripes in power, including the present government of the minister this morning...it always seemed to be that they came down and listened to us for the sake of, well, okay, let's go listen, because I'm the minister responsible or the official responsible, and then they go back and make arbitrary decisions.

So the whole concept of shared jurisdiction came about for us to put in place some kind of a framework that we could have some meaningful input, especially with regard to local issues, the setting of quotas around our bays and coastline, the licensing of fishing boats.

Let me point out one right now. The minister has gone now. He didn't mention it and I thought he might. It's to do with fishing boats. Do you know that we have fishing boats 45 feet in length going out 150, 160, 170 miles off our coasts to fish for crab?

A voice: Forced to go out.

Mr. Jim Morgan: Forced to go out in a 45-foot boat because the regulations in place by the minister of the government--and there for a while--say they're not allowed to go beyond 45 feet and go out and build a 65-footer. Why? Because the regulation is set down by the Government of Canada. It's not because of the economics of the fishermen. That's their decision to go into a larger boat, but for safety reasons alone.... I think all the players in the fisheries have been saying it now for the last couple of years--I've been adamant over and over because I know the situation--that it's unsafe to send a 45-foot boat out 170 miles off our coast to fish for any species of fish. But the Government of Canada says no, you must not be allowed to go from 45 to 65 feet, even though you're sitting with a commercial quota; you have a quota of fish, an allocation set to you as an enterprise, and you own a boat. Why shouldn't you be allowed to go out? Your choice as a fisherman should be to go in a dory or go in a 65- to 70-footer even. But no, that's the kind of regulation the Government of Canada is not listening to from the players in the fishing industry, fishermen in particular.

I think maybe you'll hear from Mr. McCurdy on that one, because it's his members, fishermen's union members, who are wanting to do that.

One of these days you will turn your radio station on, whether you're in Ottawa, in your constituencies, or wherever you may be, and you're going to hear talk about a major disaster off our coast, with one or maybe two or three vessels. They're out there, far off the coast, and storm conditions come up. The bottom line is that it's very unsafe for them to be out there, but they're forced to do it. That's where the province should have a say on that kind of issue, like the regulation regarding the size of the boats the fishermen can use.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Morgan.

You can have a last quick question, Bill.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I would first comment that we feel very strongly about that issue as well, the boat size, and this committee has taken that issue to the minister.

Mr. Chairman, I know we're waiting for Mayor Hann right after Mr. Morgan, and I want to recognize the presence in the room right now of the Honourable Kelvin Parsons, who is the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for the province. He is a member who represents the provincial district of Burgeo--La Poile, which has numerous fishing problems, where the community of Burgeo, of course, is located.

The Chair: Welcome, Minister. Thanks for coming.

Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Once again, let me also congratulate Mr. Morgan. I'm not a bit surprised at his presentation. I've heard him do presentations for many years. Jim has a lot of experience in this field and he speaks from the heart, which is so important in an issue like this.

I have a couple of comments. He mentioned the shrimp quota to P.E.I. This is not because it's P.E.I., Mr. Chairman; it could be anywhere. We've seen shrimp quotas given by the government in recent years to groups, agencies, or provinces. They don't create a job in the province concerned. There are quotas sold in the water, usually caught by foreign bottoms and transshipped. It's hard to justify that when you have places like Burgeo that could use such a product to create jobs on shore. It's not happening, and I'd certainly like your comment on that.

Also, you said, “Where do we go from here?” That's a pretty good question because over the years we have debated this issue. I don't think we've ever debated it, though, when we had all the players involved--federally, provincially, different agencies. In respect to that, I'm glad to see the few people who are here, because some of them have been driving this. With the publicity these meetings created and with the NAFO meetings and the resolution in the House, I didn't think I'd get into this room this morning with interest.

Where is the interest? I'd certainly like your comment there. If the province and the groups directly concerned are not going to roll up their sleeves and get involved in this, if we're not going to get the push and support from the local levels, it's going to be a lot tougher for us to push it at the federal level.

Mr. Jim Morgan: I'd like to respond to that briefly. I know the chairman is from P.E.I., but I want to pinpoint that it's not a matter of P.E.I. allocation; it's anybody else that comes in. When they take quota allocations and it's a consortium, they take it and make their money from it, but there are no jobs created with respect to the provinces they're working from.

The problem with Newfoundlanders today is that we've always been noted as the most friendly people in Canada, next to P.E.I. and Nova Scotia, I guess. Well, Quebeckers are friendly too, and British Columbia, but we're known to be very friendly as a people.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Canadians are usually friendly, Mr. Morgan.

Mr. Jim Morgan: The point is that there's not a room full of fishermen this morning. Maybe they'll come with the union spokesman, the union head, I don't know. We've become a passive people. I hate to use the term “militant”, but maybe we have to get more militant as a people.

I made a statement this morning about Confederation, and I said it from here. Now, I'm not promoting it, but I said it from here and I meant it. We're too passive. We just sit by and say, “What can we do about it? There's nothing we can do about it.” Maybe that's the reason there are only a few people in this room this morning.

I've heard my friend John Efford say this over and over while he was Minister of Fisheries in the province: people are too passive; they don't rise up and say we have to stop this nonsense.

With all due respect as well, I don't think the committee did adequately advertise. The first tip I got yesterday, from my colleague, my friend, Loyola Hearn. He said “We're coming down”. I said “What are you going to do”, and he gave me the information. But the first tip I heard publicly was yesterday evening on the fishermen's broadcast. I had calls yesterday from some fishermen who said “What's this all about, Jim? Are you going down to that meeting? What's going on?” They didn't know about it. So maybe that's one reason why there's not.... There could have been more advertising of your meetings here from the committee.

Maybe, as I said when I started off today, maybe it's because we sick and tired of talking about it. We are sick and tired of listening to people talk about it around the table, any kind of a table, because we're just wasting our time. I hope that it's not the case, because Newfoundlanders have a good fighting spirit; they always did. I just say we're too passive as a people right now.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Morgan.

Mr. Wappel, and then we'll come back to Mr. Lunney. We're going to restructure the afternoon a little bit and we'll go to MCTS a little later.

Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you. I won't be long, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Morgan, I just want to remind you, I'm from the province of Ontario, the home of many transplanted Newfoundlanders, and we are friendly too.

I just want to be clear on what you said. You were very passionate about a number of things, but you specifically said that you do not agree with the proposal of the minister, or his suggestion, because Canada does not have enough funds--this is my own paraphrasing of what you said--to conduct proper scientific studies and enforcement. If there were sufficient funds to have proper scientific studies and proper enforcement with the proper equipment, would you then agree with the minister's suggestion?

Mr. Jim Morgan: You're referring to custodial management.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Correct.

Mr. Jim Morgan: The only problem with talking about custodial management is it's going to be an awful lot of talk and time before you get custodial management of the stocks on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.

If costs are going to be a factor in the federal level of government in taking action, I don't have too much hope, because they cut back the costs substantially, as I mentioned earlier, on the coast guard, on the surveillance, on the fisheries research, and matters of that nature.

You see, Mr. Wappel, last year the federal DFO scientific division--the year before last, in this case--didn't have sufficient funds in their budget to let the scientists go out on our coasts and do research studies on our fish stocks. They didn't have it. They went public in Newfoundland and said “We don't have the budget, we don't have the money. We don't have sufficient funds to go out and do research.” The last one that was done, surveys in research, was a multi-species survey: one survey looking at all the species along the edge of the northeast coast--2J, 3K, 3L, all NAFO areas, and inside. They didn't have the money.

So the Government of Canada seemed to take the attitude that there's not too much activity--the moratorium was on--fish stocks are not coming back, whether it's foreign overfishing or seals, it's not coming back.... Nobody can tell Newfoundland why they're not coming back, and there's no scientific research being done, nothing in any adequate way to determine why the cod stocks are not coming back as they were years ago. So nobody knows why on that issue.

Right now, we have people dependent on the species of crab in a big way. Crab and shrimp took the place of the groundfish. And you know what? Today there are not sufficient funds in the scientific division of DFO to carry out adequate scientific research on the stocks of these two species--in particular, crab. So can you imagine down the road if the crab fishery fails? There's nothing left.

So to answer your question, I have no faith in Ottawa being able to do an adequate job outside the 200-mile zone, on doing adequate surveillance or research, if they ever got control of the stocks to manage them, if they're going to continue their present ways of cutback, cutback, cutback.

Mr. Tom Wappel: You said it was time to take some action, and I believe, because you didn't agree with custodial management, one of your suggestions for action was shared jurisdiction, but isn't that--

Mr. Jim Morgan: No. You misunderstood me. We've been asking for shared jurisdiction on matters inside the 200-mile zone for years. But on this issue we're now discussing, the main topic, we feel--and I think many others feel the same way--that if you're only going to proceed on custodial management and diplomatic talks with NAFO, and continue to work within NAFO, or if you do as the Minister of Fisheries for the province said this morning and withdraw from NAFO, it's not going to work. We have to do something now.

Mr. Tom Wappel: What is that?

Mr. Jim Morgan: I mentioned closing our ports, to show the rest of the world, in particular EU countries, we mean business as a country. We're not pussycats any more. We're going to get tough where it hurts. If we get tough, as a country, where it hurts with these guys, they're going to take a second look. But right now they're laughing at us. I'm convinced they're laughing at us, especially the EU members like Spain, Portugal, and others.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wappel and Mr. Morgan.

Last question, Mr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: This is more a comment. As westerners, we also represent resource-based communities that are suffering, for other reasons. Having said that earlier, I hope we didn't leave an impression that we have our issues, so we're not concerned about yours. As Canadians, we're all concerned about each other's issues. Many of them have the same underlying intrinsic problems, which the chair alluded to.

What can Canada do to flex its muscles, whether it's on softwood lumber, the farmers' issues of potatoes or wheat, or your concerns out here? Somehow we have to remember we're all Canadians and work together on this issue.

Somehow Canada has to discover its quills. When you're little...in nature we see lots of examples of that. The porcupine has its quills; the scorpion isn't big, but it has its sting; the skunk has his resources when he's threatened; the birds don't like Monarch butterflies because they don't taste good. Somehow we have to discover our quills and find a way to use them. It's the responsibility of all of us to protect and look after each other's interests.

We're in this with you, and we're going to do what we can to stand up for your concerns here and see that Canada does the right thing. As Canadians, we have an appetite for good, honest discussion and finding solutions.

I just want to thank you for your presentation, Mr. Morgan. On the frustrations you have endured over a long time, we encourage you to please not give up. If we all work together, somehow we can find answers to make our communities better places.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lunney.

On just one further point of clarification, Mr. Morgan, you and Tom got into a discussion on arresting ships, or not allowing them into our ports.

Your other key point was on using the legislative framework. Can you elaborate on that a little more?

Mr. Jim Morgan: On the framework that was used by the Government of Canada when we shot across the bows of the ships and brought them into St. John's port, maybe you are more familiar than I am with the results of that. But my understanding, from talking to some of the diplomatic bureaucrats, was that it sort of failed. As the old saying goes, we had some egg on our face as a result of doing that.

But the fact that we were able to do it and it was done should not be ignored in the future. If we can do it quite legally and it means the EU countries will look at it and say, yes.... But if we can't do it without having egg on our face and being embarrassed--I understand the Government of Canada was somewhat embarrassed internationally by the end result of the Estai affair--maybe there'll be hesitation in doing that. But if there is a legal framework in place to be able to do it and be effective, as analysed by this committee, do it again.

The Estai affair gave some hope to Newfoundlanders at the time. The whole downtown area was blocked by people, in support of what was going on. I remember when Brian Tobin went over to the U.K. Maybe he's a star now, I don't know, but he was a star then. They welcomed the man as a great hero because he was doing something they believed in.

Maybe something like that can be looked at again, rather than just closing ports.

The Chair I can tell you that when the issue was on, I was one of the ones who went to the European Community to talk to the European Community fisheries committee, and it did have an impact. Portugal and Spain walked out of the meeting. But it did have an impact and we did show some muscle. Maybe it didn't end up as great at the end of the day, but I think it shows that if you take a hard line, you've got to stick with the hard line right through. And really, from my point of view, when it got to the end, there were too many diplomats on the issues and not enough people on the front line.

Anyway, thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr. Jim Morgan: Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to say sincerely that I'm convinced in my mind that you people may have learned something while you're here and you'll make a good report. I think you will. I think you understand the problems. I know the two MPs from Newfoundland do. If you make a report, I'd like to see some kind of procedure in the future where your reports aren't ignored by the ministers, because we've seen reports in the past totally ignored by the governments of the day. The ministers ignore the report. They don't even act on one recommendation. If you're going to make recommendations, as you did with the shrimp matter a little while ago, make the recommendations stick, and all parties should use the issue in the House of Commons to make sure the ministers listen and take some action. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much for a very strong presentation.

Our next witness is the Mayor of the town of Burgeo, Allister Hann.

Mr. Hann, welcome. The floor is yours.

Mr. Allister Hann (Mayor, Town of Burgeo): Yes, sir. I was going to say good morning but I think it's afternoon right now. I certainly don't intend to follow the eloquence of Mr. Morgan. However, I've got to say that at the end of the day, you're going to find that my approach to this problem is going to be 180 degrees out of phase with Mr. Morgan's approach.

To the Honourable Loyola Hearn, I'd like to bring this up now before I forget it. You asked why there's not a larger number of people here today. I don't think it was properly advertised or publicized--that's number one. Number two is the location where the meeting is being held. You're not in a fishing town at the present time. If your hearing had been anywhere where people from the south coast, from the Burin Peninsula, from Harbour Breton, Burgeo, and Ramea could have commuted in less than an eight- to ten-hour drive, I can assure you, you don't have enough seats here today to accommodate the people who would have been here. These are the people who have been hit the hardest by the decimation of the groundfish on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hann, for that constructive criticism. It was one of the debates we had, whether we should travel to the outports. Your point on advertising the meeting may be a valid one and we'll look into that. We may not have publicized it enough, but we'll check to see what happened there.

Mr. Allister Hann: I just wanted to clarify that. Because there are not the people here, it doesn't mean the interest is not here in Newfoundland with regard to extending the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.

My name is Allister Hann and I'm mayor of the town of Burgeo. To give you a short biography of my involvement with the fishery, my involvement is one of being born in an outport town; I grew up in an outport town, and for 25 years I worked as a fisheries enforcement officer with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. When I say enforcement officer, I'm stretching Webster's meaning of the word “enforcement”. I'd say it was more like monitor the situation and stay on top of it.

I have been on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and I've been on the decks of foreign trawlers, and anyone who could look at one of their nets and see the construction of it, with the double netting, the cow's skin on the bottom, the English dollies, and everything that goes with it, and then pick on a little thing like mesh size.... There's no hope once it goes into that net that it's ever going to come out. So you can start by bringing on a net that fishes a whole lot better, unless it has changed in the years since I've been going there.

The town of Burgeo is located on the southwest coast of Newfoundland. To be more definitive, it's right on the 3Pn and 3Ps dividing line. This town has survived for centuries from the sea. Schooners and trawlers from Burgeo have fished the Grand Banks for years. Since 1992 the town of Burgeo has been dead, with no offshore fishing and no processing taking place on land. Before that, our town employed approximately 400 people in the fishing industry. Today they're only employing a handful in the near-shore fishery, what we call the inshore fishery.

The reason I've chosen to come here today is because of the importance I attach to extension of jurisdiction. Also, your committee, in looking at me, will be able to put a face on a particular town, the town of Burgeo. There are many other Burgeos in Newfoundland. Our towns have made and continue to make the ultimate sacrifice, that is, of dying. This is due in no small part to Canada's mismanagement of our fishery inside 200 miles and total inaction and disregard for the nose, tail, and Flemish Cap of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. I would like to emphasize that--the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, not just any grand banks. It's the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, and no one should forget that.

When Newfoundland came into Confederation in 1949, it brought with it the Grand Banks. The Grand Banks is to Newfoundland what softwood is to British Columbia, oil to Alberta, wheat to the prairies, potatoes to Prince Edward Island, and what apples are to Nova Scotia.

It's about time Canada acknowledged this and started to take the kind of action it would take if the resources of other provinces were threatened. I've heard this morning about other provinces being threatened with their resources as well, but the problem here is in the selling of your resource, not the harvesting of it, the growing of it. That's not our problem. Our problem is keeping people from stealing it from us. So it is a different problem.

The way our fishery was and is, make no mistake about it, if Newfoundland had maintained its sovereignty or joined the United States in 1949, it would now have full control of its continental shelf. I firmly believe that. I firmly feel that when Iceland was declaring jurisdiction right out to its full continental shelf, that Newfoundland, even though we may have been small, would have done the same thing.

A few days ago, the data on the census for Canada came out. The census results released this week show Newfoundland's population declining the most in Canada. It shows Newfoundland down to 1971 levels, and rural Newfoundland being hardest hit. The south coast towns of Marystown, Ramea, and Burgeo are showing the greatest declines. These towns that fish 12 months a year contributed to the economy of Canada and were the most dependent on the Grand Banks. Beyond a doubt, these declines can be attributed to the decline of the fishery on the east coast.

Let's deal with the softwood industry. Everyone here is aware of the softwood tariff and what prominence has been given it from the Prime Minister on down. When was the last time anyone here heard the Prime Minister say he was going to bring up the matter of abusive foreign overfishing that is taking place on the Grand Banks? When was the last time the Prime Minister said something to bring some pressure to bear on the pirate nations?

It's time this nation put as much emphasis on fish as they have on softwood. It was only last night that the Prime Minister, when he was in the United States, was talking to the President of the United States about softwood. I don't think we'll ever live long enough to hear him mention fish. I don't think we will.

I have to refer to the Estai affair because it was a complete farce. It was a golden opportunity for Canada to draw a line in the sand. It started off with the right idea, but in the end it was a complete failure, with Canada on its knees pleading. To my knowledge, Canada paid for the fuel, gave back the ship, gave back the net, and compensated the company for lost fishing time.

The agreements reached as a result of that affair, especially the observer agreement, to me is like the United States of America hiring Taliban to be guards at the prison in Guantanamo Bay. That's just how I would compare that; I don't see any difference in it. In my opinion, the Estai affair right now is working against this nation, because they're betting dollars to dimes that Canada hasn't got the guts to try it again. If I was a betting man, I'd wager that Canada doesn't have the guts to try it again.

Anyone who can look at a map of the Atlantic Ocean, which takes in the Scandinavian peninsula, the European coast, the Iberian peninsula, and especially one that depicts our continental shelves, and conclude that the nose, the tail, and the Flemish Cap do not belong to Canada must have you-know-what in their eyes. Any liar or politician who cannot go to an international court and make a case for coastal state sole management or ownership, in my estimation, to use an old Newfoundland phrase, is not worth his own salt.

Recently I heard Mr. Leonard Legault, a maritime lawyer and architect of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, and Mr. Paul Lapointe, a 30-year employee of the Department of External Affairs who negotiated the straddling stocks agreement following the Estai affair, participate in a public forum on extension of jurisdiction. If this is the best that Canada has, then it's no wonder Canada has failed to extend jurisdiction. They open their mouths and immediately they exhibit a position of weakness. They must believe it belongs to Canada before they can convince others that it belongs to Canada. And when I hear them speak, they're not convinced themselves. That's the part that frustrates me.

Scientists now can go back millions of years and they can look and say that Alaska was joined to Siberia, Labrador was joined to Newfoundland. I'm pretty certain that if they can do that, they can go back far enough and know that if the continental shelves were now brought above water, the continental shelves would form the coastline of Canada. The area we're trying to get jurisdiction in would form the coastline of Canada rather than being our continental shelf. I don't usually believe those experts, but in this case I guarantee you that I could make an exception.

ICNAF and NAFO have failed miserably. NAFO is just as much a failure and will continue to fail. Here is how I would describe NAFO: NAFO is like a mother who makes threats to her children and then doesn't follow up with them. It's like a mother going out in the evening, leaving three kids behind, and she's got a jar full of cookies. When she leaves she says “You can have one cookie and a glass of milk”. When she comes back, they've eaten the full jar of cookies, drunk all the milk, but she doesn't do anything. That's exactly what NAFO does.

It's time Canada stopped pussyfooting around. Now is the time to let the world know that enough is enough. The pussyfooting that Canada has been doing for the past fifty years must come to an end. The time for asking and pleading for nations to comply is over. It's time to demand compliance.

Now I'm down to my conclusion, and I'm going to say where I differ from Mr. Morgan. Mr. Morgan thinks closing ports is the answer. Closing ports is not going to do a damn thing. There's lots of water in St. Pierre, there's lots of oil in St. Pierre, and you can transship out of St. Pierre just as well as you can anywhere else. So that's nothing, in my opinion.

Canada has a coast guard, it has an army, it has an air force, and it's got a navy. I strongly suggest it's time that Canada started harassing nations outside our 200-mile limit and put the full strength of our navy on the Banks. Britain stood up for the Falkland Islands; these islands were 8,000 miles from Britain, but she still came to them. It's time Canada stood up for Newfoundland. Yes, if we go that route it may get hot, maybe shots will be fired, and perhaps bloodshed, but if that's what it takes, then that's what it takes.

Presently, Canada has troops in Afghanistan, and it is quite possible that some may lose their lives. I assure you that I will feel as much remorse as anyone in Canada about anyone should they lose their lives. But when those soldiers and sailors joined the forces, that's the chance they took, knowing that someday they may be called on to do this. I say it's time we used our forces to take control of our continental shelf. It's time we called a spade a spade.

I know many of you here today are going to look at me and say, “That guy's right off the wall. There's something wrong with him. What's he talking about?” Well, gentlemen, you go to the outports where I go and live. They don't think I'm off the wall, and neither do they think what I'm suggesting to you this morning is farfetched.

I sincerely hope the exercise we're having here today and tomorrow is not an exercise in futility. I don't think it is from your part, but if you go away and you just can't bring all the parties of Canada together, to bring pressure where pressure has to be brought, then that's exactly what this hearing is going to be: just another exercise in futility.

Rural Newfoundland is dying, particularly my town. Canada, as far as I'm concerned, is pussy-footing around. The question is not whether Canada should act, but when. The answer I have to that is now.

I want to thank you this morning, and I want to particularly thank my MP, Mr. Bill Matthews, for arranging for me to come here this morning and make this presentation to you. Thank you.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Hann, for a very direct presentation. I do understand that it's a 10- or 12-hour drive in here, and we certainly appreciate you coming and laying it on the line. We try to call a spade a spade at this committee.

We'll start with Mr. Burton.

Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you for your presentation. We certainly understand what your position is and where you're coming from. I really don't have a question. I think I understand exactly what you're telling us.

I just want to comment that I'm a west coast MP from coastal northern British Columbia, and I think we have a lot of very similar situations, not only with the fishery but with our other resource-based industries, logging and mining. I think it's indicative of a problem right across Canada that has not been properly addressed. I think we all have to be aware of it as members from across Canada and bring to the attention of the government in power that there are very serious problems in all the resource-based industries, possibly with some similarity of reason and different reasons in other cases, but with the overreaching factor that we have problems.

I certainly sympathize with you. I come from an area where the population in my riding has decreased by 7% since the last census. It's basically the largest decrease in British Columbia, strictly attributed to the decline in the resource-based industries.

So I certainly understand where you're coming from. We'll give every consideration to your comments, and I would like to thank you for them.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Burton.

Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Mr. Mayor, I would like to thank you for your presentation. I have to tell you that I also was the mayor of a small community along the St. Lawrence, and that we had some difficulties that we were finally able to settle.

You referred, amongst other things, to the Estai affair. I am not saying whether I agree with your position or not, but basically, you are asking the Canadian government to repeat on a grand scale what happened in the Estai affair. In other words, you are asking the Canadian government to act forcefully and vigorously. Do you think that the Canadian government is in a position to do so at present? We must understand each other. Do you believe that the Canadian government has the means to do so, and especially, that it wishes to do so? I am not convinced.

[English]

Mr. Allister Hann: That's more than I can say, whether Canada has the means to do this or not, but if Canada doesn't have the means to protect the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, then it doesn't have the means to protect anything else in Canada either. That's not my problem, whether you have the means or not.

But I do know one thing, as far as support is concerned. Anyone who followed the Estai affair knows that it had support from British Columbia to Newfoundland. Everybody supported that fight. I had phone call after phone call from people in Alberta, and right across this country, and I'll tell you people were standing up saying at last Canada has the guts to say something to somebody other than excuse me and please and thank you.

Yes, I think we need the force. Maybe you have to go out and get it from somewhere, but get it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Roy and Mr. Hann.

While we're on the Estai affair, you do on the one hand say it was a farce, and this discussion came up earlier this morning. What happened that from your point of view it may have ended up that way?

I sometimes think we negotiated success away, because in the beginning, I think it was the right thing. I still think it was the right thing to do, but did we negotiate success away? Did we revert to our pattern of being pussycats when it came to be hard, or what?

Mr. Allister Hann: Yes, I think we did. I think it started out in the right way, but then the negotiators sat down and supposedly drew up agreements after that. And the taking of a net and carrying it to New York, I mean, that could be for no other purpose than just political showmanship.

You're not going to get control of the nose and tail of the Grand Banks by taking a bloody big net from St. John's and trotting it down to New York. Just look at the meeting you're having in a little city like St. John's. You're wondering why the people didn't show up.

What do you think you're going to get in a city the size of New York? I dare say they got someone there. I dare say Mr. Tobin paid them to come there too.

The Chair: Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have a question, because there's one thing you learn about Allister Hann, and that is once he's finished, you really understand his point of view. He's not one of those fellows who leaves a lot of grey.

So I just want to thank Allister for coming in all the way from Burgeo to tell us his story and give us his point of view, because having represented the town of Burgeo for a few years now, trying to resolve a very difficult issue for them and put people back to work, I've come to appreciate the honesty, directness, and frankness of Allister Hann.

So I just want to thank you for coming, Allister. There's nothing I can ask you a question on. It's pretty straightforward what you recommend.

The Chair: Thank you, Bill.

Mr. Stoffer, Mr. Lunney, and then Loyola.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is another community, which you are aware of, and that's Canso in Nova Scotia. The mayor of Canso could have been saying the exact same words you did when it came to the lack of resources and the lack of backbone of the Canadian government on this.

Sir, you mentioned the fact that the word “fish” doesn't even come out of the Prime Minister's mouth. But one of those pressure points has to come from the premiers themselves, and I'm always surprised that the four Atlantic premiers haven't gotten together with their colleagues from across the country--in their recent meetings, for example--to discuss this issue rather forcibly.

Have you had an opportunity yourself to speak to the premier of this province, to the opposition leader, and to Jack Harris, leader of the NDP, to ask them to work collectively with their colleagues in Atlantic Canada to go to Ottawa as a group and say, “Mr. Prime Minister, this is our issue, we want you to discuss this and do something about it right now”? Have you had the chance to bring that issue forward?

Mr. Allister Hann: Mr. Stoffer, believe it or not, I've never heard of the place called Canso.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No?

He's kidding, I know. He's kidding.

Mr. Allister Hann: Bill knows the difference.

But anyway, yes, sir, I have. I sat down with Mr. Grimes shortly after he became premier of this province, and I told him then that it was time for him and his party to get their heads out of the nickel pot, to stop swimming in oil and chasing all those grandiose ideas to turn Newfoundland into an industrial Ontario, and to start working on what this province was built on, which is fish.

I asked him to do that. I attended the FPI hearings in Stephenville. I requested then that they form an all-party committee. Go out and get support from New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia; go to the Bloc Québécois, the Alliance, the PCs, the NDP, everybody, and let's tackle this thing just like that. But do you know what? You bring up a very interesting point, because the Government of Newfoundland, I'm starting to believe, doesn't give a shit about fish on the Grand Banks. Someone talking about sheer jurisdiction...? Forget it. We'll have less chance if it comes down to St. John's than we have up in Ottawa, and I mean that.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: If I may make a final comment, Mr. Chair, I think one of the issues we heard earlier from Mr. Morgan is that we'll go back and do a report, and there's a good chance that report will be ignored.

But I'm asking your advice. What can we do, then, to not only discuss this with our federal counterparts, but also with our provincial counterparts across the country? It's not just in fish, as we've heard today, but also in softwood and other areas.

How do we bring the premiers together, for example, to go to Ottawa for their next meeting and tell the Prime Minister, look, what's happening out at the Grand Banks is a very serious issue, and we need you to at least talk about it and deal with it as forcefully and as effectively as you described here? How do we do that?

Mr. Allister Hann: Well, I don't know. You certainly have more resources at your disposal than I do, coming from a municipal government, but I do think maybe it is time this committee, the MPs from Newfoundland, and from other areas, got together and sat down and pooled collectively to convince other people across the country, and maybe set up a meeting.

You're aware that there's going to be a provincial meeting on health care. All the premiers are going to meet. Then there's a meeting on something else. Why not just try that on fish for a change, or resources? Bar the whole works of them in a room. Lock the door and let them clear it out, and when they come out, maybe tell this country, in Ottawa, this is the way you have to go in order to bring Canada together and so that Canada will be a country, and not splintered and fragmented the way Canada is today. Those are my thoughts on it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Do it right now.

Mr. Allister Hann: Yes, do it now. Don't go waiting until 20 years from now. I'll probably be gone...I don't think I will; I'll stick around on purpose.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, let me make a little comment on the comment Mr. Hann made about my comment. It was about people here.

Certainly I wasn't referring to the plant workers and fishermen. I represent Trepassey, so I know exactly where you're coming from, sir. But I'm thinking of politicians; I'm thinking of groups and organizations. They should be representing us, because if we collectively can marry all these with the government, we can get something moving. If we don't get the grassroots involved, our battle is going to be tough, as you know.

You also mentioned that you're probably off the wall on some of the stuff you said. But if you are, you're in our tent, because we been saying the very same thing.

I just want to ask a couple of questions. Somebody mentioned this morning that we had about 20 million pounds that they know of, of product caught, species under moratorium, and yet we have about that much caught on the nose and tail.

How much product did Burgeo put through during a year when everybody was working?

Mr. Allister Hann: The average for Burgeo was around 30 million to 36 million pounds per year.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: So that kind of product could basically keep Burgeo going year round.

Mr. Allister Hann: That kind of product kept Burgeo going.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: And that's just what we know of, species that shouldn't even be touched.

Mr. Allister Hann: That's right.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: The other one question, because of time, or a comment and a question, is, you mentioned the closing of the port in St. Pierre. The same thing happens when we close St. John's to the Spanish and Portuguese. They thumb their nose at us. They went to St. Pierre, and the only people who suffered were the business people in St. John's, who lost a lot of business because of it.

However, perhaps with shrimp, because of the lack of freezing and whatever, it could work. I don't think we should close our eyes to any option that might squeeze them a little bit, and I agree with you that there has to be...let's take them on, number one. But if there are other things we can use to tighten that screw a little bit more, let's look at them too.

In my question, I'll touch on it briefly, but I'd like you to elaborate a little bit, because it was just yesterday, I think, that I talked about the same thing.

You mentioned nickel, oil, and fish. Do you think that people in Canada, maybe even people in Newfoundland, realize that oil will come to an end, nickel will come to an end, if it ever comes to a beginning, but, as somebody said, we've been here 500 years living on fish, and properly managed we can continue? The amount of employment fish creates in this province compared to any of the others...there's no comparison. Why is it that we can't get people to understand that?

Mr. Allister Hann: I think there are people who understand that, Mr. Hearn. It's just a different group of people. I know where I come from, I don't think people could care less if there's ever a spoonful of oil come out of Voisey's Bay. I say that in all sincerity. If it starts coming out by the truckload, the buses and the U-Hauls will still be leaving Burgeo. It's not going to give any employment in our towns, definitely not.

Yes, I think those resources, oil and nickel, are good, but we must always keep our eye on the main resource, the reason Newfoundland was put here, and that's fish. You can do what you like out in Alberta, oozing oil, but at the end of the day Alberta's going to go back to farming. That you can be just as sure as I'm sitting here.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Lunney, I guess you have the last point.

Mr. James Lunney: I basically just want to ask about Burgeo itself. A lot of people around here seem to know about the town, and being new here...maybe you assumed everybody would understand.

Basically, you're the first mayor of a small town that has really been hit by this. I do know now that you have about an eight- or ten-hour drive to get here. I do know that you used to process 36 million pounds of fish there. What is happening in Burgeo now? What population did you have? What have you got now?

Mr. Allister Hann: We had a population of approximately 2,500. We're down to 1,782 as of...those were the figures that came out last week, and I believe the census was taken in the 2001. So I guess we can drop down another hundred or so less than that. That's what the population used to be.

What was the other part of your question?

Mr. James Lunney: Your story is like the ones we've heard in general about the coastal communities, from Mr. Morgan and others; you're seeing the young people leave.

Mr. Allister Hann: Yes. Our people now are sort of broken down into two groups. There are the over 50s and the under 40s. The under 40s go to Alberta in November and they work out on the oil fields, mainly with seismic.... Apparently this work is a little too strenuous for the older people. The older ones now are working in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, picking apples and whatever they can find a few jobs doing.

What's happening to my town, which used to work 12 months a year.... We've got an ice-free port. Now it's a town that has become dependent on EI. The initiative, everything, has been taken from our people. It's just not good enough.

If Canada is proud of that, then Canada can be proud of anything. But every day I'm getting less and less proud of Canada, I can assure you of that.

Mr. James Lunney: Do you still have a plant active there?

Mr. Allister Hann: We've got a plant there.

Mr. James Lunney: What are you processing now and how much?

Mr. Allister Hann: We're not processing anything.

Mr. James Lunney: So it's idle.

Mr. Allister Hann: It's idle.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you.

The Chair: Are there any other points anyone wants to raise?

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank Mr. Matthews for his assistance in bringing Mr. Hann before the committee. We were in Burgeo in 1998, and it's always challenging for a fisheries committee to go to a particular outport town because the other outport towns want us there as well.

I just want to thank Mr. Matthews for his assistance in bringing Mr. Hann here. His presentation was very good. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much again, on behalf of the committee, Mr. Hann, for your direct and forceful presentation.

With that, we will suspend the hearings on the nose and tail until tomorrow at 8:30 a.m. This afternoon we have to deal with the other issues related to MCTS and the coast guard.

If you want to pigeonhole a member in the corner, you're certainly welcome to do that, and you're welcome to have lunch.

So with that, thank you very much, Mr. Hann.

Thank you to all the people for coming.

The meeting is adjourned.