FISH Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 7, 1997

• 1104

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Good morning, honourable members. I see a quorum.

Your first item of business is to elect a chair, and I'm ready to receive motions to that effect. Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): I propose Mr. Baker for the position of chair.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): I note that the first order of business is to entertain this motion for the chair. If we can get consensus in the committee, I'd like to propose that we would do this election of the chair and the upcoming vice-chairs by secret ballot.

The Clerk: Is there consensus of the committee to proceed that way?

Mr. Wayne Easter: No, there is not.

The Clerk: No consensus. So the motion is on the floor. Mr. Easter moves that Mr. Baker do take the chair of this committee.

Mr. John Duncan: Can I call for a recorded vote, Mr. Chair?

The Clerk: Yes, you can.

• 1105

(Motion agreed to: yeas 14; nays 0)

The Clerk: I declare the motion carried and I invite Mr. Baker to take the chair.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

An hon. member: No long speeches.

The Chairman (Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.)): Where do we go from here?

Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Chairman, I would like to nominate Mr. Lunn as vice-chair.

The Chairman: Are there any further nominations?

Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): I would like to second that motion.

The Chairman: We don't need a seconder in committee, but it's on the record. Are there any further nominations?

Mr. John Duncan: I would like to call for a recorded vote, if we have a vote. Do we have a vote? I assume we do.

The Chairman: Well, it's up to the committee.

Mr. John Duncan: We voted for you, and you were the only one named.

The Chairman: But this is by acclamation. Do you still want—

Mr. John Duncan: You were by acclamation.

The Chairman: Oh, that's true, I was by acclamation. Do you still want a recorded vote?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: It's unanimous consent.

A voice: That's great; I love it.

The Chairman: Are there nominations for the second vice-chair of the committee?

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): I'll move Charlie Hubbard.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Mr. Hubbard is the other vice-chair.

The next point on the agenda is the appointment of a subcommittee on agenda and procedure. This is, I presume, the steering committee.

The Clerk: Yes, it is.

The Chairman: The chair, the two vice-chairs, and we have to decide how many other people will compose the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. We're open for suggestions from the floor.

Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine— Pabok, BQ): I propose that at least one representative of each duly recognized party in the House sit on the steering committee. This would, I feel, result in an enlightened agenda. This would also reflect the current make-up of the House of Commons. Since the chair and one of the vice-chairs represent the Liberal Party and the other vice-chair the Reform Party, I move that a representative of the BQ, a representative of the NDP and a member of the PC party be appointed to the steering committee.

[English]

The Chairman: Is there any discussion? Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): I know one from each party certainly would be appropriate, but the parliamentary secretary usually should also be in that committee. I think if the other parties would concur, it would be in the best interests of the committee in general.

A voice: The farmer turned fisherman.

• 1110

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): I note that many of the other committees have recognized that the parliamentary secretary has direct input through the chair and the other vice-chair. I support the motion of my learned friend here that it would be appropriate to have one of the members from the other three remaining parties each to have one member on the steering committee.

The Chairman: Let me get it clear. Do you mean even if that member happened to be the parliamentary secretary?

Mr. Gary Lunn: No. I think we need to have one member from the NDP, one from the Bloc, and one from the Conservatives.

The Chairman: Together with the chair.

Mr. Gary Lunn: And the two vice-chairs.

The Chairman: You would have to have a representative, though, from the government side, because the chair is impartial.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: I can assure you the chair is impartial.

Mr. Gary Lunn: No, I mean a vice-chair.

The Chairman: I get your point. There would be the chair and the vice-chair and then one from each one of the remaining parties.

Mr. Gary Lunn: That's right. What I'm saying is that the parliamentary secretary has the opportunity to make submissions to the steering committee or to have access to the steering committee through the vice-chair.

Mr. John Duncan: The difference, Mr. Chairman, is whether you have a steering committee with seven or a steering committee with six. Seven is starting to get fairly unwieldy.

The Chairman: Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chairman, based on experience in the previous Parliament, when I certainly wasn't PS, I found it extremely valuable to the steering committee that the PS was part of that committee in terms of where the committee was going. We had input from the minister and it was certainly useful to me, as a member of that steering committee, to have that input.

So I guess I'm arguing that the committee be made up of the chair, the vice-chair, the parliamentary secretary from the government side, the vice-chair from Reform, and one member from each of the other three parties.

The Chairman: Did you say the vice-chair from the Reform?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes.

The Chairman: And one from each of the other parties, together with the parliamentary secretary?

Mr. Wayne Easter: That would be three from the government side and four from the opposition parties.

The Chairman: Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I understand through the whip's office that the procedure and House affairs committee has already agreed to this format with the six people. It's my understanding that all of the committees so far have followed that format, a six-member steering committee—not all, but many.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I really wouldn't want, as a committee that's going to operate in the interests of the fishing community in its own right, to start taking direction from other powers that be at this stage of the game. I'm surprised to hear that coming from Reform.

Mr. John Duncan: As far as I'm concerned, the parliamentary secretary is welcome.

The Chairman: So the motion is that it be composed of the chair, the two vice-chairs, the parliamentary secretary, and a member from the NDP, a member from the Bloc, and a member from the PC, for a total of seven. It's been moved by Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Steckle, that this be the composition of the steering committee.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Wayne Easter: What exactly is on the table, before you carry it, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: It's been carried, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary. It's the chair, the two vice-chairs, the parliamentary secretary, one NDP, one Bloc, one PC.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Thank you.

The Chairman: Our next motion has to do with meetings in the absence of a quorum. It has been the custom that the quorum is 50%, half the members. The motion is that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least a certain number of members are present, including a certain number of members of the opposition.

The practice has been that the chair be authorized to hold meetings in order to receive evidence when a quorum is not present, providing that at least three members, including both government and opposition, be present, with the provision that, in the case of the absence of either government or opposition members, the chair be authorized to call the meeting to order no sooner than 15 minutes after the time indicated on the notice, as long as three members are present.

• 1115

I presume the reason for that is that sometimes witnesses are here in the committee and members have not yet arrived. An authorization is being sought to have their evidence prior to a quorum being present. Is that...?

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I think that the three-member rule comes from a period when committees were smaller. I'd recommend that we go with five, including the chair and two members from the opposition.

The Chairman: So your motion is for five members, including the chair and three members of the opposition.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Two members of the opposition.

The Chairman: Two members of the opposition.

Mr. Gar Knutson: This is for the purpose only of hearing evidence.

The Chairman: The purpose of only hearing evidence, which is what the motion is all about.

Is there discussion on that? Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Chair, in an earlier meeting this morning in agriculture we adopted the three-member rule, for the simple reason that many times witnesses travel great distances to come here. These people have commitments in terms of meeting their air flights back to their respective ridings, and to delay further a meeting we have called would not be fair to them, because it's often at great cost that these people come to us. We would hope that five would be there, but I believe the three-member rule is a fair rule so that these people can be on their way again.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I concur with Mr. Steckle. The five and two, with a large committee, is probably a more appropriate number, but what's the better of two worst-case scenarios? I think the three and one is more practical, because you don't want to have.... Witnesses have travelled. By far, the five and two would be better for us, but I think the three and one is more practical in that situation, to accommodate witnesses who have travelled.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Are you saying the chair plus three others? Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Gary Lunn: No, three with the chair. Three members—

Mr. Bill Matthews: With the chair as one.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Yes, the chair is one of those. Three members, plus one from the opposition—just to make it easier to accommodate witness who have travelled.

The Chairman: Let's say that is the motion before the committee; that is, three members are present. Those in favour?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Shouldn't one of those three members be from the government? I don't consider the chair from the government.

The Chairman: Exactly.

Let's just go back to the original motion again, so that we're sure of what we're voting on. The motion is that the chair be authorized to hold meetings in order to hear evidence when a quorum is not present, providing that at least three members, including both government and opposition, are present, with the provision that in the case of the absence of either government or opposition members the chair be authorized to call the meeting to order no sooner than 15 minutes after the time indicated on the notice, as long as the three members are present.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Fine.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Now the opening statements and questioning of witnesses. This is an important matter. The motion—and we have to fill in the blanks—is that witnesses be given a certain number of minutes for their opening statement and that during the questioning of witnesses there be allocated a certain number of minutes for the first questioner from each party and that thereafter a certain number of minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner at the discretion of the chair.

Mr. Stoffer.

• 1120

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): I would like to say that if someone is travelling all that distance to speak to us, we should give them some time. I would say that twenty minutes for an opening statement for somebody in that regard would be adequate.

The Chairman: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: I'd like to say that we should leave the regulation of speaking rotation and times to the discretion of the chair. This provides for the greatest flexibility. If at some time in the future we decide that we don't think that's working, we'd have an opportunity to change it. I would so move.

The Chairman: That is the order of questioning.

Mr. John Duncan: Order and time.

The Chairman: The number and the order and time. Before we get to that, the witness.... The normal committee meeting is an hour and a half. Is that correct?

Mr. John Duncan: Yes.

The Chairman: An hour and a half. The opening statement by the witness should be how many minutes?

An hon. member: Ten.

An hon. member: Twenty.

The Chairman: What is the custom of committees that have made their decision? So far it's what? It's ten minutes.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Duncan's proposal is valid. It will depend. I've been a witness before committees a heck of a lot more than I've sat on committees, to be honest, over the years. I've appeared before 128 committees in the last twenty years. It depends. If you're the only witness there and there is an hour and a half, sometimes you're given twenty minutes as a witness. Sometimes if there are three groups, you're only given five minutes.

So if we're too restrictive in terms of the motion, we're going to lock ourselves in where in some cases we'll be unfair to witnesses and in other cases we'll be more than fair.

The Chairman: Mr. Harris.

Mr. Dick Harris: I would just like to concur with Mr. Easter. Certainly the chair should have the flexibility. I've sat here in committee meetings when there has been one witness who has droned on for twenty minutes, when ten minutes of that time was just words and it could have been more appropriately spent asking questions of the witness.

I think the chair should have that flexibility. I think it would serve to make the committee operate smoother and more efficiently.

The Chairman: What happens, though, Dick, if you have everybody present here and you have an hour and a half for a witness? What you're suggesting is that we leave it up to the chair as to how long for that person, and then adjust according to the circumstances of the committee? Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Dick Harris: Yes. I think the chair could do it prior to the meeting. When everyone's getting seated, the chair could do a quick survey of the members present and say “What do you think, guys and girls? We've only got one witness. What kind of time should we be doing here?” That's if you feel it's appropriate to do that.

The Chairman: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I tend to disagree with that. I think that if someone's coming all that way they're going to be prepared, and if they know in advance how long they're going to be able to speak or make their presentation, they're going to have that text as defined as possible. Whether or not they're going to be told they've only got ten or twenty minutes that day, they're going to prepare the best impact statement they can. If they come here and we tell them there are other people here, and they're down to five or ten minutes, that's going to really shorten what they're going to be able to say and they could get ticked off with us. I think twenty minutes is adequate in that regard.

The Chairman: Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I really think if you go the twenty minutes here, you're limiting. Most often the groups do table a submission. It might take half an hour to read the submission, and then they try to highlight it down to whatever we request, whether it's ten minutes or whatever. Often I think you'll find that at committees the most valuable exchange is actually during the questioning, so you've got to leave enough time for that to get into the issues, so that you really understand what the witness is trying to say.

Normal procedure, Mr. Chairman, is usually about ten minutes per witness, and that can be given, but you need some flexibility there.

The Chairman: Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I think that given the composition of this committee, when you have fifteen members who want to question and you put five minutes to each person, with a response time, you're not going to have a lot of time.

I agree with Mr. Easter, and I think with Mr. Duncan and Mr. Harris as well. I think that a lot of this discretion ought to be left with the chair. The chair may view the meeting and say that since there is one witness this morning, we will only have five questioners, five members to question. That puts it in a different perspective, as if we were all here and having three or four witnesses. I think discretion should be left with the chair to a large part.

• 1125

The Chairman: Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I support that proposition. I understand that most often you will receive written submissions prior to a witness coming. So we will all have time to evaluate that, and if we feel that more time is needed, we can ask the chair to entertain that or leave more for questions. I think it would be a mistake to narrow our options at this time. Greater flexibility would be the best.

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: The motion on the table to allow 20 minutes for an opening statement is basically satisfactory to us. However, I would add a line saying that the committee can decide the order of the questions and how the time is to be shared among the parties, based on the business at hand.

In the past, Mr. Chairman, you were quite involved in the work of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. You know very well that when we undertake a series of hearings, for example, on the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, we are going to hear from many witnesses. We will have to group witnesses together and set a certain pace.

Since we will be hearing from many witnesses from all five provinces, if we allot 20 minutes per witness or grouping of witnesses, this shouldn't be too much time. When we add five minutes per party, it brings us to 40 or 45 minutes. This could be our basic rule of procedure. If we cannot agree amongst ourselves, we will revert to the 20-minute rule.

With all due respect, I would not leave this to the chair's discretion. The chair is supposed to be neutral. It must, therefore, carry out the committee's wishes.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: I believe that the motion we are discussing is mine. I don't want to change the motion, but I do want to make a comment.

We've heard on two occasions about five minutes per member. I would hope that the chair, under my motion, should it be adopted, would recognize the make-up of the House in terms of the time allotted within a flexible boundary for the opposition parties and the governing party.

The Chairman: Mr. Duncan, your motion is that the entire thing be left up to the chair.

Mr. John Duncan: Yes.

The Chairman: Your motion is that the matter of timing be left up to the chair. We have Mr. Stoffer's motion—

Mr. John Duncan: Rotation and times.

The Chairman: Rotation and times.

Perhaps we should deal with Mr. Duncan's motion first. Is there any discussion on Mr. Duncan's motion? Mrs. Karetak-Lindell.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): I would like to think that there should be some basis of time allotment, even if we are not going to always stick with them and be flexible. I think as far as the witnesses are concerned, they would like to know what the standard minutes are that they are allowed if it is a normal committee hearing.

Ten minutes is a long time for submitting a report. From the discussion I've heard, it's in the questioning that the committee gets the most input. So I like the ten minutes as being the standard one and then at the beginning of each meeting, if we find that we have very few witnesses or very many witnesses, we can make a motion to change the usual format. But I think there has to be some usual format witnesses can get familiar with.

The Chairman: Mr. Harris.

• 1130

Mr. Dick Harris: In support of Mr. Duncan's motion, first of all, giving the chairman flexibility in dividing up the time and the presentations I think is essential to the operation of the committee.

Secondly, I think the chairman, through the clerk, certainly would be able to advise the witnesses sometime in advance of the meeting as to how many other witnesses there would be and about how much time would be appropriate for the presentation.

Thirdly, I think the committee here should show the confidence they have in the chairman to make decisions in a non-partisan manner, which is best suited to the committee itself and the people who are making presentations.

I support Mr. Duncan's motion, and I would like to call the question if I could.

The Chairman: Mr. Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Everyone will have to adjust to the new reality in the House of Commons with its five recognized parties. This reality could indeed make the work of committees considerably more cumbersome.

Consequently, I would suggest that we allocate at least half an hour per witness, that is 10 or 15 minutes for the statement and 20 minutes for... There are at least five parties represented on the committee and we must allow for a minimum of five questions per witness. It won't be easy, but we'll have to adjust to this new reality right now if we wish to respect all those whose views may differ from ours.

Therefore, in my view, we should allow at least half an hour per witness, that is ten minutes for the statement and 20 minutes for the questions. This would give each party four minutes. That's not a lot. The more I think about it, the more I feel that we will need even more time for each witness.

Therefore, perhaps we should think twice before... There could be some advantages to leaving this to the chair's complete discretion, but there could also be some inconveniences. This could prove to be too heavy a burden to bear.

[English]

Mr. Dick Harris: All of that can be accomplished within Mr. Duncan's motion.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: One last little thing. Excuse my ignorance to the political world, but I always thought we were here because we represent the people. We shouldn't be setting up rules and policies that benefit just ourselves.

There are going to be possibly thousands of people we're going to speak to on an individual basis or on a group basis throughout the next four years on the very difficult issue of fisheries. I think we should at least give the perception out there that we're going to listen to these people and let them just sort of attack.

I've heard the fact that we get more out by questioning, but I think they get more out by allowing a statement, by being allowed to speak. That will open up more of a democratic process, at least in their eyes. That's why I keep insisting on the twenty minutes.

The Chairman: I'm going to put the question proposed by Mr. Duncan. The motion is that in relation to the speaking rotation and times, it shall be left to the discretion of the chair until the committee sees fit to remove it.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Our next motion has to do with the Library of Parliament: that the committee retain the services of one or more research officers from the Library of Parliament as needed to assist the committee in its work, at the discretion of the chairman.

Mr. Gar Knutson: So moved.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: I'd like to invite up Alan Nixon from the Library of Parliament, and Claude Emery, who has written many papers concerning fisheries management. These are two very experienced gentlemen from the Library of Parliament. I might say that practically anything you can think of regarding fisheries management, these two gentlemen have worked on in academic papers. We can certainly make use of them.

• 1135

Next is witness expenses: that at the discretion of the chairman, reasonable travelling expenses, as per the regulations established by the Board of Internal Economy, be paid to witnesses invited to appear before the committee, and that payment of these expenses be limited to two representatives per organization.

Is there any discussion concerning that proposal?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Do we have any further business? Does the committee feel that it wishes to make statements regarding what they believe the committee should be doing? What are the urgent necessary things we should be directing our attention toward?

Mr. Duncan, first.

Mr. John Duncan: I'd like to make a rather routine motion, and that is that whenever order in council appointments are referred to this committee, the clerk shall obtain and circulate to each member of the committee a copy of said appointments as soon as possible.

The Chairman: The motion is that as soon as the clerk is notified of any order in council appointments, as he would be immediately, a copy of said appointments be circulated to each member of the committee.

Mr. John Duncan: I may want to speak to the intent of the motion for one second here, Mr. Chair. This is routine procedure, with the exception that in the past we've had times when these have been accumulated and were not timely when they were received by the members. The intent of the motion is that this be an expedited procedure.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Being new to this kind of format, I'd like to suggest to the chair and to members of the committee that with the situations in the Pacific salmon industry and the Atlantic fishery, on which today we'll be receiving the Auditor General's report....

When it comes to the Atlantic, the fish have not regenerated, the fish stocks have declined, and individual fish are growing at a slower pace than anticipated. We have the shutdown of the TAGS compensation program in May 1998 and no employment opportunities for the thousands of individuals in those rural communities in Atlantic Canada.

I think this committee should immediately become preoccupied with the fisheries on the west and east coasts of this country. My suggestion is that as soon as possible we get to both regions and delve into the problems of the Pacific. We know the problems in the Atlantic; it's what's going to happen down there next May. I think this committee would be very wise and prudent to move very quickly in both directions in this country and let our presence be known.

The other thing that will come from today is that we don't have a national sustainable fisheries policy in this country. I think this committee had better be a lightning rod for that as well. I just make that suggestion for you and members of the committee. That certainly has to be a priority for this committee, in my view.

The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of points, basically carrying on from where Mr. Matthews left off.

Last year I sat on this committee and it didn't move out of Ottawa. It stayed put. It didn't move to the west or centre or north or east, to any part of the country. I think that's wrong; I think it's dead wrong. If we're going to be a committee with teeth, we have to reach out to the people. Sitting here in the central capital region is not going to do the job of understanding the issues, whatever they might be.

For instance, as you very well know, I've stated, and I will state again, that I think it's time members of this committee and members of Parliament generally understand what some of the impacted areas are in the Atlantic fishery. I happen to think that the harp seals are one example; they are a cause of the demise of the northern cod stocks. That's just my particular view, but I'm sure there are thousands of others out there who would want to say that to the members of Parliament. You have to contend with that back in your own ridings in some cases.

• 1140

The points go on and on. We have to reach out.

I've heard rumours around the Hill that we're not going to be allowed to travel because of the close majority and all these sorts of things that we're dealing with. I think we should be straight and be honest and be fair. I don't think we should play games with ourselves politically to the detriment of the public we represent.

I think we have to come to a basic understanding on both the opposition and government sides that this whole issue of defeating or not defeating governments relative to numbers, because we can't travel.... That has to be dealt with, Mr. Chairman. I think you should get a handle on that right away.

The other point I would like to make—and this is a very personal one relative to my riding and being on this committee—is that I notice you talk about witness expenses. But, sir, I will not be able to travel with this committee if there is not compensation for me. I have 20 special points and I have them all used up right now because I have to use them for travel by charter in my riding. They're all gone. In order for me to go west or east, it would be a special point. I have none. So if I'm going to be a member of this committee, I need money to be able to do it. My budget, my MOB, is shot, so I can't afford hotel bills or anything out of it. I would need compensation in order to be able to travel.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Matthews mentioned one point which, in my opinion, warrants priority consideration by the committee. He referred to the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy. This well-known program is scheduled to end next May. Nothing has been done to rebuild the fishery or to retrain workers. More significantly, nothing has been done to rationalize the fishing industry.

I think that the last Parliament completely missed the boat. This time around, we must break out of the gate running. The last committee was struck in November 1993, but did not start working until February 1994. At the time, we had in place a program called PARPEM, which was an income support program for fishery workers and fishers on Newfoundland's west coast. Subsequently, all of these individuals as well as fishery workers in the Gulf were hit with the moratorium. This allowed Mr. Tobin...

When a new party comes to power, the first thing it does is change the names of programs. This one was dubbed the TAGS program. The result was an average 6 per cent drop in benefits.

However, Mr. Tobin had promised that the industry would be rationalized, that fishing boat licences would be bought and that fishers declared surplus would be retrained. However, $1.9 billion later, nothing has been done.

If the committee intends to make this one of its priorities and to conduct a study... Personally, I find the appointment of a member from Ontario insulting. I have nothing against the fact that he comes from Ontario and that he has worked for Employment and Immigration Canada, but he will merely be speaking for Mr. Pettigrew, the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Human Resources Development Canada, like us, won't be able to do anything as long as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and we on the committee have not submitted a report to the House indicating what the industry wants and what it can do. I want us to make this our priority consideration and to make the necessary travel arrangements. If that doesn't work, we should arrange to have these individuals come here to testify.

I expect that this will take us at least one month. The work has to be done quickly, that is this fall. One of the main things we need to do is to bring some influence to bear on the Minister of Finance who has to have the broad outlines of his budget drafted and ready to go for the month of December.

We have to be able to act quickly and say to him: Yes, the fishers and the industry workers need some financial support and here is the amount they need. They're going to ask us what they can do to improve their situation. They have ideas, but we need to find out what they are. We have to stop managing this country on a purely economic basis.

Therefore, I ask that we make this a priority of ours this fall.

• 1145

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bernier. Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I come from the central part of Canada. There is also a resource of fish in the Great Lakes, and one of the predators of that resource is the sea lamprey eel. There has been a small amount of money in the budget attributed to that cause for a good many years. We almost lost it two years ago.

I think this committee ought to understand the implications of the sea lamprey in the Great Lakes in terms of what it does, how we've been able to control it and in some places almost eradicate it. I think this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

I quite agree with my colleagues here that the east and west fisheries are of a greater dollar value and importance than my issue, but the fact is we're only talking about a very small amount of dollars, less than $6 million, and I think that is an issue we all ought to understand better.

I would encourage the chair to fit this into our agenda so we can look at this, so we can encourage the Minister of Fisheries to reinstate that money and make sure that money is there in the future, because of commitments that have been made by the sportsmen themselves to further compensate this cause, providing we have the commitment. We would need to seek that commitment from this government.

The Chairman: Mr. Harris.

Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Chairman, I'm on this committee, as you know, but I want to speak generally about committees and studies.

There is a general consensus that there are lots of problems in the fisheries resource area, and quite likely there will be a number of studies and trips and commissions and looking into and reports that will come from this committee, which consists of elected members from all parties. You have the resources of the Library of Parliament, you have researchers, you have a pretty good body here to arrive at common-sense, sound solutions that you can give the government by way of report.

Now, one of the problems I've always had, and I'm sure some of these members who have sat on committees.... I know Charlie sat on a committee with me one time on the St. Lawrence Seaway. One of the problems you have with government is the fact that despite all the good work committees do, and despite the absolute soundness of the reports you give to government, nine times out of ten the darned things end up sitting on a shelf collecting dust and nothing is ever done. I just want to encourage this committee and the chairman and the parliamentary secretary to do everything they can to encourage the government to act on the committee reports that come from this committee so that the time, Mr. Chairman, will not be a waste.

The Chairman: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I think my views on a judicial inquiry are very well known and I won't go into them any more. But I think the scientists within the department and also those people working in the environment and natural resources departments are still under the threat of a gag order or suppression order to prevent them from speaking their mind in an open forum without fear of job retribution. I find that despicable, I find that very undemocratic, and I think it's time we put a stop to it in that regard.

If scientists are going to come forward and state their case, their case is going to be open to opinion and review, and if they're shot down, then that's the chance they'll take. But at least they'll have the opportunity to speak their mind and remove the perception of thousands of fishers on both coasts that there is something going on within the DFO that they don't like.

Also, the history of the ITQ system is completely disastrous, in my opinion. It has taken control of the fisheries away from individuals or small community allocations and put it into the hands of four or five corporations across the east coast. As you can see, they have 50% of the resource allocation now, and with the sell-off from individual fishers being forced into the ITQ system they have almost 70%. With their high-tech methods of fishing now, we could be here another five years and the fish could be totally wiped out and the jobs wouldn't recover at all.

Also, the determination of history, especially on the east coast—that's a major bone of contention of who has history and who doesn't. You have people who have fished for 25 years; in one particular year they didn't fish a particular stock and their history was taken away, and thus they didn't qualify for TAGS. Yet we have fishers who joined the fishing industry in 1990-91, and now they have TAGS. The whole system, as you mentioned before, just fell apart and there was no consultation, no management process.

• 1150

He spoke earlier about the fact that committees do a great job and we have the resources here. We've had those resources for years and years, and now we're at this stage on October 7, 1997, in a crisis situation.

I firmly believe, with my friend Bill here, that we do have to get out to those individual areas of Burgeo, Canso, Prince Rupert, wherever, even the Great Lakes, and discuss these issues with people in their own hometowns—at least give them the perception that we're doing something.

Another issue that will have to be dealt with are the straddling stocks. The agreement will have to be looked at, and with our friends in the parliamentary library and also the research they have done.... That's going to be a very important issue—the 200-mile limit, and what Brian Tobin had done previously, and now Glen Clark is doing a similar action and he's getting in shit all over the place.

Those are issues that I think we'll have to look at, and it all stems from my call for an inquiry. I'm not the only one asking for that; all parties have asked for it. Also, thousands of fishers on both coasts have asked for a judicial inquiry so that we can set up policies in the future so we won't have to deal with this again.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, I think probably everything I was going to say has been said.

It's important that we go out to visit, but I think that before we go out to visit it's very important to hear from the department and the deputy minister about their objectives, their concerns, and the issues they want us to try to consider.

I think the committee has very good representation. We have a great number of people here with experience, people who have a great sense of the grassroots problems with the fisheries. But before we go out and ask for judicial inquiries...we are the people who can do things more quickly and more effectively than some judge who might sit on this topic for two or three years and eventually have a report in five years' time. I think it's urgent that first of all we hear from the department—probably next week or the week after, when we get back—that we hear their concerns and that we relate to them our concerns and objections, and then make up a system of going out to visit both the east and west coasts and also the area of the Great Lakes and some of the freshwater fisheries.

Thank you.

The Chairman: I see a consensus here that we should give a report to the House very quickly.

I'm sorry, I left out Madame Karetak-Lindell.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you.

Well, I invite you north. When the land claims agreement was signed a few years ago, it created a board called the Nunavut Wildlife Management Advisory Board, and that is responsible for all the wildlife in the new territory. Right now, we have barely any quota on the turbot, we don't have any TAGS for the turbot, and also there is shrimp and arctic char there. Everyone in the government knows that the north depends very largely on government transfers, but no one ever looks at the other side, where we can contribute to the revenue.

Right now we have no way of keeping any of the revenue that comes through the Northwest Territories on both sides. Fisheries is a very big issue and a new avenue for job creation, taking what's up there and using it to create jobs in our area. There hasn't been much attention paid to fisheries and marine animals in the north. I think there needs to be more focus, because right now whatever could be used by the people up there to make a living are sometimes being fished by other countries, and that's an issue I think we have to deal with.

That's my input. Thank you.

The Chairman: There was a recent court decision relating to the fish on the east coast of Canada, from Labrador down. Perhaps we could look at that court decision and what the ramifications have been.

I think there's general agreement here that we should seek a reference from the House—and make it a general reference that the steering committee could deal with—that would enable the committee to travel. In other words, when you get the reference, that gives the committee the authority to travel, if need be. I sense a general opinion that we do this immediately and get it going.

Do I also sense a general agreement that we should have our committee meetings in the only committee room that's televised, which is Room 253 Centre Block, on CPAC? Is that a general opinion of the committee?

• 1155

An hon. member: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Chairman: I've already done that, and I've asked the committee clerk to get.... Now, what are the results of your telephone call of a minute ago?

The Clerk: We can have Room 253-D on October 21 and be televised for hearings on the three chapters of the Auditor General's report that he tables today.

The Chairman: What about all of November?

The Clerk: From November 18 until the House adjourns in December, we can have Room 253-D.

The Chairman: We can also discuss as well, when we have 253-D, the system that's used to have a screen and to be able to hear from witnesses—

The Clerk: That's videoconferencing.

The Chairman: Is that available to the committee?

The Clerk: Yes, but the room that's set up for that is over in the Promenade Building, Room 701.

The Chairman: So we can't bring the things into 253-D?

The Clerk: No.

The Chairman: Why not? We should investigate that.

The Clerk: It costs money.

The Chairman: Okay. If that's general agreement, we can deal with that in the first steering committee meeting. The Auditor General has agreed to come here, in Room 253-D, which is televised, to answer questions regarding the three chapters he's talking about today. That's the soonest he can do it?

The Clerk: Yes, from 9.30 a.m. to 11 a.m. on October 21.

The Chairman: So we don't need to deal with that. Is there general agreement that we don't need to deal with that in the steering committee meeting?

Mr. Gar Knutson: We're going to deal with TAGS?

The Chairman: As for the three chapters he's dealing with today, which he'll be announcing at 2 o'clock, the first one concerns the sustainable fisheries framework, the principle of fisheries and oceans and the management of groundfish stocks. He'll be passing judgment on it. It's important that we get the authors of these chapters there. The second one deals with the rationalization and renewal of Atlantic groundfish. What he's going to pass judgment on is whether or not the direction of the department addresses the historical and fundamental problems of the fishery, its stocks and the actual harvesting of fish. And the third one is TAGS.

These three subjects are right up our alley, I would say.

The other reference we do have here at the committee concerns the west coast. The reason I say that is because the minister has tabled in the House and referred to the committee a report concerning the management and sustainability of the....

What he did was table two annual reports in the House of Commons. They are not specific to the west coast, but you certainly can work the west coast into it. What it talks about here is a report on the administration, enforcement and protection of the fish habitat. So we do have a report tabled in the House of Commons that we could hold hearings on...well, the committee can hold hearings on whatever it wants, really, but the custom has been that they deal with it under matters that are tabled before the House.

So should we have another meeting, awaiting the call of the chair, on when the steering committee meeting will be? I'll be in touch with each person on the steering committee and we'll call a meeting as soon as possible. Just mark down October 21, 9.30 a.m., Auditor General, in the TV room, which is Room 253-D Centre Block. It's what they call the Railway Committee Room. It's the only room that's set up for televising the proceedings. What happens is that CPAC tapes it and then plays it back on their channel.

Mr. Bernier, did you want to say something?

• 1200

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: You're referring to the meeting with the Auditor General. That's the second meeting. When is the next meeting scheduled? Is there nothing before that?

[English]

The Chairman: No, the House is not sitting next week, so it will be on October 21, the next Tuesday.

I think we're going to have a good time in this committee.

The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.