FISH Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Friday, November 28, 1997

• 1000

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.)): Order. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is George Baker and I am the chairman of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in the House of Commons. We're very pleased to be here today.

I want to call on MP Charles Hubbard, who passed the motion that the committee travel and have hearings in the Miramichi in the province of New Brunswick...since Mr. Hubbard is responsible for the motion that the committee appear here, I would ask Mr. Hubbard to declare this meeting officially open.

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thank you, George. Good morning, everyone.

[Translation]

I would like to welcome you to Miramichi and issue a special welcome to Mr. Bernier.

[English]

We're happy to be here today. We represent all political parties in the House of Commons. I mentioned Mr. Bernier because he gets a very special welcome. Mr. Bernier is from la belle province du Québec and represents the Bloc Québécois party.

We didn't ask for a green passport this morning, Yvan, but welcome to the Miramichi.

We were in his riding of Îles-de-la-Madeleine yesterday. In fact,

[Translation]

we travelled throughout

[English]

all of Newfoundland. We worked the north shore of Quebec, where Yvan is from, to the Îles-de-la-Madeleine, and today, of course, after that storm last night, here. We certainly want to say we're happy the committee is able to come here on behalf of all the people and the fisher people of the Miramichi.

Mr. Godin, from the NDP, joined our committee. Mr. Stoffer was with us until yesterday.

We're certainly glad, Yvon, in terms of the peninsula, that you are able to join us, because you do represent a very large number of fisher people.

We hope today to be able to hear your views. We have a set agenda to begin with. Different groups will come before the committee and make their presentations. In my experience in Newfoundland, especially on the south coast of Newfoundland, our chairman, as always, welcomed all groups to stay as long as they want. In fact, on one occasion we wondered if the night would ever end back in Newfoundland. We went until nearly 1 a.m. But I can assure you, after the different groups have presented, we will give an opportunity for people in the audience to come to the round table and express their views.

[Translation]

It is very important

[English]

for all of us here on the peninsula and this area of Miramichi to be able to express themselves to this committee. The committee, as George has mentioned in many places, eventually will make a report not to any party but rather to the House of Commons.

We've had indications across Newfoundland and throughout some of the other areas—we'll be going to Nova Scotia tomorrow—that there are some very serious concerns. With that, of course, we hope the report we will give will reflect what we hear. We're not here to speak. We're here to listen. Our good friend Alan will write a report we hope we will all agree on, in the five parties. From that we'll make that presentation to the House, in the hope of the House of Commons, with 301 members, hearing what the great people of Atlantic Canada have to say about the fishery.

Welcome, George. It will be a good day. The people of Neguac are always a great people—and all the way along the coast, Yvon. We know you will be very graciously hosted and I'm sure you'll have a good impression of what our groups are all about.

The Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, as Charles pointed out, we have with us today the people who write the policy for each one of the political parties in the House of Commons, and that's very important. We have the official critic from the Reform Party of Canada, and the associate critic, who writes policy on fisheries for the Reform Party of Canada, the official opposition.

We have the official spokesperson on fisheries for the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. Nobody else but the person we have here today is the person who writes the policy for the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

We also have two people who write policy on behalf of the New Democratic Party of Canada. Those are Mr. Godin, and Mr. Stoffer from the province of Nova Scotia. Those two MPs take care of the New Democratic Party of Canada.

• 1005

We have the person responsible for the policy of the Bloc Québécois, for their party, here with us today as well.

We have with us also, from the Liberal Party of Canada, the parliamentary secretary, the junior minister for the department, as well as other Liberal MPs.

So the group of ten that we have here today is a group of very important people. If you report to the House of Commons, which we will, on what's wrong with the fishery, what's wrong with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as it relates to fishermen and fish plant workers, the Government of Canada would find it very difficult not to pay attention to the recommendations of all of the political parties in the House of Commons. I make that point because it's very important that you understand that, that we are reporting to Parliament on what we hear in these meetings, like the one here today.

I want to introduce the MPs, first of all: Bill Matthews is the spokesperson for the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and an MP from Newfoundland; Gary Lunn is the associate critic and spokesperson for the Reform Party of Canada and is from British Columbia; John Duncan is the chief spokesperson for the Reform Party of Canada, the official opposition, and is from British Columbia. Of course, you all know Yvon Godin. He and Peter Stoffer, who's from Nova Scotia, another MP, write the policy on fisheries for the New Democratic Party of Canada.

We also have MP Nancy Karetak-Lindell, who is from the Northwest Territories; MP Wayne Easter, from the province of P.E.I., who is, as you know, the parliamentary secretary, the junior minister for Fisheries and Oceans; MP Charles Hubbard, who represents, as far as the Liberal Party is concerned, the writing of policy on behalf of the fishery from this province and who is responsible for the committee being here today; and MP Yvan Bernier, who writes policy on behalf of the Bloc Québécois in the House of Commons.

Ladies and gentlemen, as we mentioned, we report to Parliament; we don't report to the Government of Canada. So we don't take any sides on policy. What we say in our report is going to be what we have learned from these meetings is wrong with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as it relates to policy that affects fishermen and fish plant workers, and because the TAGS program is about to close we are also looking at that as far as making a recommendation is concerned.

Our procedure here today is quite simple. We have certain witnesses before us and we're going to make sure that everybody has their say and equal time. After all of these witnesses have been heard, we're going to break for lunch for about an hour. That could be around 2 p.m., because we're running an hour behind time. Then we'll go into the afternoon.

As I say, each fishermen's organization will receive equal time. Mr. Hubbard's motion made this a one-day affair to make sure that if we're late, we're late. In other words, after the official presentations, if anybody from the floor wishes to speak, they will be given an opportunity to speak. They'll simply come to the microphone and have their say. We think that's a pretty good way of doing it.

As Charles has said, we're here to listen. That's our primary function. We're not here to talk; we're here to listen, because we're here to listen and learn so that we can make sure that in our report we have it right, according to what we've heard. That is very important. If we don't hear it, we're not going to understand it.

So it's very important that some of the fishermen here today—and I can see there are a few fishermen here in the audience—don't leave here saying, well, if I had only stood up and made this point; I should have done it. Well, you must do it today.

• 1010

We'll start with our first witnesses from the Maritime Fishermen's Union. Perhaps Michael Belliveau can introduce the people he has brought with him today.

Mr. Michael Belliveau (Executive Secretary, Maritime Fishermen's Union): Actually, our president is Frank McLaughlin, so I'll turn it over to him.

[Translation]

Mr. Frank McLaughlin (President, Maritime Fishermen's Union): Ladies and gentlemen, we represent the Maritime Fishermen's Union. I would like to welcome you to the Acadian peninsula, and in particular to Neguac.

[English]

First of all, I'm going to try to introduce my group. Zoël Breau is from New York; he's the secretary-treasurer of the union. Mike Belliveau is executive secretary; Reg Comeau is the New Brunswick coordinator; and Ron Cormier is the New Brunswick second vice.

How much time do we have? One hour? I'm going to leave the mike to Mike and he will try to read you the brief.

Mr. Michael Belliveau: We didn't have a chance to translate this brief. We knew you had translators here, so we're taking advantage of that. We'll do the actual presentation in English, but in the exchange afterwards it will be dans la langue de votre choix.

We were sure this must be the first meeting of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in the Neguac area. We can tell you first and foremost that you're coming to one of the most productive fishing areas in the whole country. If we had some confidence here and boldness to say what we say below, it's first and foremost because we are blessed with a remarkably productive ocean ecosystem in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Our motivations as the MFU are to ensure that this resource appropriately benefits the greatest number of persons populating hundreds of coastal communities in the southern gulf.

The Maritime Fishermen's Union itself is a broad-based organization of inshore fishermen in the maritime provinces. We're broad-based in several senses. We're based in as many as 150 different fishing communities across three provinces. We're based in both the French-speaking fishery and the English-speaking fishery. We're based in the gulf and in the Scotia-Fundy region. We're based in virtually every commercial fishery in the maritimes, from lobster to herring, mackerel, smelt, gaspereau, tuna, scallop, rock crab, snow crab, oyster, cod, pollock, haddock, pike, sole, etc.

Our members participate in quota fisheries, community controlled fisheries, effort controlled fisheries, and fixed gear and mobile gear fisheries. Nevertheless, a fisherman or woman joins the MFU on the sole basis of being an inshore fisherman, not on the basis of their gear type or whatever.

Within the inshore fishery we are then what we call an inclusive type of organization, as distinct from a single species, a single gear, a single wharf, or a special interest type of organization. By our very nature, it is our conclusion that we're forced to consider the interests of the entire community of inshore fishers. The common good is distinct from a special interest.

This character of being broad-based makes us enormously sensitive and vulnerable to the apparent drive in the national government towards what we call privatizing the fishery, and I think other people have said the same. It places us at loggerheads with DFO, as DFO progressively advocates its role of manager of the fishery to brokering partnership deals with special interests or specialist fleets. It also places our organization under enormous stress as the downloading of responsibility for the common good and the way we're defining it is inevitably shouldered by our type of broad-based organization.

Most comments we will direct to you today pertain to the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, but be assured that our members in Cape Breton, Meteghan, Clarks Harbour, and elsewhere share the concerns we raise here.

• 1015

In the present fisheries transition period, the broadly based type of organization that we're representing is caught in what we call “the ambiguities of co-management”. On the one hand, fisherman are clearly attracted by the idea of having more control and more to say. On the other hand, the DFO and the Treasury Board, under the fine-sounding terms of co-managing and partnering, are pursuing a highly questionable privatization agenda.

The legitimate aspirations of fishermen and fisherwomen towards more say in the fishery quickly play into a powerful dynamic coming from Treasury Board planners, who seem to want to divest themselves of the fisheries and make a profit as they go.

We'll come back to this co-management theme, but first we have a comment on DFO science because I know that was one of your preoccupations.

The debate, mainly a media debate, about the role of science in the groundfishery collapse is largely a phoney debate, in our judgment. It's phoney not because scientists within and without DFO don't have some extremely important points to make about what caused the groundfish collapse and not because there's no real validity in the charge that DFO science bureaucracy has tried to cover their rear ends.

There is validity to these assertions, but they are of marginal interest to inshore fisherman who've been shouting from the rooftops since at least the early 1980s that the resource could not withstand the massive and aggressive fishing unleashed by the Canadianized dragger fishery since the 200-mile limit.

DFO science enterprise was in effect co-opted, in our judgment, by this powerful build-up of Canadian fishing powers since 1977.

It's absolutely phoney to go after the scientists. They didn't have a chance in a climate driven by powerful monied and political interests that invariably followed and represented the powerful. Don't for a minute pass off our comments to mean that we are talking about one or two large corporations like National Sea andd FPI. Let's face facts. The cod destruction also came from the ranks of the mid-shore and the inshore. We know this story well, like MFU itself. The fish company or the individual fisher in a highly efficient fishing machine, usually with provincial subsidy, then find they need more fish.

• 1020

Throughout the 1980s we saw the Cadegan interests in 4Vn, the individual companies like DB Kenney in southwest Nova Scotia, the Acadian Peninsula, mobile fishermen investing and specializing. Similar patterns you can find everywhere, in Cheticamp, in Souris. I'm leaving Newfoundland out. You'll know your own experience there.

The machines are bought and they build up a catch history. Then individual quotas are determined, as was the case in Port au Choix in Newfoundland, which I think was one of the first of these fleets to go onto an individual ITQ system. The mobiles in the Acadian Peninsula went on it in 1988, and then southwest Nova Scotia in 1989. The under-45-foot mobiles in Cheticamp and other places in the gulf went on it in 1991.

In many cases, the fishermen involved with these quotas break with their traditional inshore organization—and we know that ourselves, like MFU—and they create their own special interest associations to lobby for quota and property rights. Because of these systems of enterprise allocation and individual transferable quotas, most of the future groundfish resource in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence is claimed by these fleets, which in our judgment finished it off collectively.

The official policy of the DFO supports the status quo on groundfish allocation. We can understand an individual fisherman or company holding on fiercely to their percentage share of the resource, even when there's no fishery, but we cannot understand why DFO and the provinces have not demanded something, anything, in return for having kept the mobile fleet on support programs, deferred interest payments, provided crab allocations and shrimp allocations, and set up high-priced experimental projects and so on. What we're saying is we understand their doing that. That's fine, but why not demand something in return? We don't see that.

We recommended four years ago that the government get into the business not of a buy-out but of a buy-back, as we saw it, of the quotas of the companies and these ITQ holders. Why not get that back into the common pot? Then you're in a position to look at the future in terms of how you're going to allocate resources and how the future fisheries should run. That never happened. As you probably know, the buy-back in the maritime provinces was largely unsubscribed to. It was a failure and then completely underfunded. We started in the gulf here with $30 million, and $3 million was spent overall.

The committee members should know that we already have a powerful example of quota allocation reversal in the southern gulf. After the large herring container fleet brought the 4T herring to its knees by 1980, their percentage of the tack was reduced from 80% to 20%. The rest was allocated to the fixed gear inshore fishermen. Throughout the 1980s the resource continued to rebound, and to this day it remains at relatively healthy biomass levels.

Contrast this to the cod recovery of the 1980s. That was truncated under a very different type of management model. The cod did start to come back, but we know where it is now. Our preoccupation for the present and future fisheries management go much beyond groundfish.

• 1025

The southern gulf inshore fishermen evolved one of the most effective and stable licensing regimes in the country. We call it the bona fide system. The basic idea is that the dedicated, career-minded fisherman built up a portfolio of licences that would allow him to fish different species to make up a fishing year. We call it the multi-species, multi-purpose fishing strategy.

To make it work, we must have access to all of the species on the inshore ground, including snow crab, codfish, mackerel, herring, lobster, and so on.

The snow crab in zone 12—that's really the southern gulf, although there are a couple of small separated inshore zones in Cape Breton—is dispersed on inshore grounds and midshore grounds, yet up to 1995 our New Brunswick bona fide fleet did not have a pound of crab allocation. The quota was held exclusively by the specialist midshore fleet of 130 licence holders in the southern gulf, 81 of which were based in New Brunswick.

In 1995 the MFU was allocated 2,000 tonnes of snow crab to manage on behalf of the New Brunswick bona fide fleet. It was an important breakthrough in quota allocation, but under heavy, heavy pressure from what we call the crab interests, DFO has been back-pedalling ever since. In 1997 our allocation was reduced to 800 tonnes. Although the total allocation since 1995 was reduced by only 20%, our allocation was reduced by 60% since 1995.

The story's far from over. The DFO has worked out what is variously called a partnership arrangement, integrated fisheries management plan, or joint project agreement with the crab interests, which guarantees them a $500,000 gross landing per licence before there is any allocation to the inshore at all.

Just in case you are not aware, some of the reliable financial professionals suggest that this fleet in the Acadian Peninsula alone may be worth as much as half a billion dollars.

In our judgment, we find this deal scandalous. It is premised on a threshold analysis and arbitrary definitions of viability.

DFO has moved onto very treacherous ground when it signs off a viability deal with a handful of licence holders already worth 60 times what the average Canadian is worth. It promises them $500,000 gross landed value, while the rest of the professional bona fide fleet are denied permanent access to the resource.

It is on their fishing grounds. It is easily caught and just as economically caught by inshore vessels.

This is not a conservation issue; it's a cave-in to certain interests. The same DFO that is signing off on this kind of deal is doing nothing but piling new cost-recovery charges onto the inshore.

At the present time some of our bona fide fleet are facing bankruptcy as a consequence of localized drops in the lobster catch and the collapse of the herring roe prices, not to mention the prolonged demise of the cod stock.

We can't accept the inevitability of these bankruptcies when we see the Department of Fisheries and Oceans public policy and what it is doing.

Our fishermen estimate that they're paying between $3,000 and $10,000, and in some places they say higher than that, in new costs in the last three years under these programs of cost recovery: costs with respect to licence fees, dockside monitoring, observers, science costs, wharfage fees, tripling of even the UI premiums.

This is only one aspect of it. How can we accept that the little guy goes bankrupt when you have thresholds like we've described here for one fleet?

• 1030

We don't believe DFO has the right nor the moral authority to decide who stays and who goes. Yet from our vantage point this is exactly what it's doing in its privatization drive. This is the context in which organizations like ours are being asked to show their responsibilities for resource management. This is why co-management for us is ambiguous to say the least.

We can't accept the snow crab deal. It has no moral authority and no economic justification. We can't accept that our access to snow crab is tied to the exchange rate of the Japanese yen, the recovery of the Alaskan crab, or other vagaries of the international market.

In setting a viability threshold of $500,000 for a five-week fishery, DFO is not looking after the common good of the fishing community. It's blatantly pursuing a course of privatization to special interests.

Senior managers in Ottawa hold up this partnership agreement as a model. They want the new Fisheries Act so such agreements can be entrenched contractually and legally. Such a model is sweet music to Treasury Board, I'm sure, which sees nothing but gains in terms of licence fees and downloading of science and enforcement costs.

This is the backdrop to such partnership agreements. In our judgment it boils down to the federal state granting private ownership of most, if not all, of the southern gulf crab to a handful of owners in return for some fees and some savings. We expect your committee to examine thoroughly the implications of this agreement.

Our bottom line is that we want a permanent share of the zone 12 resource for the inshore fishermen, and for our 1,400 bona fide in New Brunswick we want as a minimum the restoration of the share we had in 1995. We don't have time to go into the details, but it was an enormous success and touched every community on the eastern coast of New Brunswick.

You should know we've been managing it by dividing it among the widest number of fishermen. Each year we have had a draw that allowed between 120 and 240 fishermen to have 11,000 pounds each. So far approximately 500 fishing operations—if you include the crew it's much more than that—have had allocations of snow crab. They are not eligible to be in the draw again until we have gone through the entire bona fide fishermen in eastern New Brunswick.

In this way we are using our small crab allocation to benefit the entire community of inshore fishermen instead of creating a handful of privileged individuals. We can demonstrate that even such a minimum quota has had a widespread positive effect on the economics of the coastal communities.

Time will not permit us to pursue other examples of this cost-recovery privatization drive of DFO. It has caused havoc in the groundfish communities in southwest Nova Scotia. The privatization of twenty licence holders of shrimp on the Scotian shelf has gone virtually unnoticed and certainly unscrutinized.

There are several other examples of management agreements in the works. We heard yesterday at the groundfish meeting that the offshore vessel owners are now in talks with DFO to develop their own special joint project agreement, as they call it. It's all part of the co-management and partnership stuff. Maybe they should enter into an agreement, but it should be scrutinized publicly and we don't see that happening in the DFO process. Usually it gets scrutinized once it's a done deal.

We can't get into this today, but there's quite an ambitious privatization program with the wharfs and the port authorities that DFO is developing. There are some things that are attractive about it and they've drawn enormously from inshore fishermen in the initial stages. But once they get down the road they become a burden. They become a heavy new cost to the inshore fishermen. It's not clear whose wharf will stay and whose will go, what management system will work in one wharf or another. That may be something we can follow up on in the question period.

• 1035

For the moment, we have to turn to the lobster fishery. The inshore fishery in the southern gulf sustains 10,000 fisherman. Lobster is the backbone of the multi-species strategy. It has had the most stable management system. Note that it's a non-quota fishery. Of all of the Atlantic coast fisheries, it continues to be sustainable at quite healthy levels.

This is the most important fishery in the maritime provinces. Yet DFO expenditures in lobster science and management are only a fraction of that for the obliterated groundfishery. We think that has to change when it comes to the maritime provinces.

Notwithstanding its relative stability, the lobster fishery is facing some new challenges. One of the most sensitive is the so-called aboriginal food fishery. We say it's so-called because there's not a lobster fisherman on the whole coast who would say that native people are fishing only for food. The native people themselves wouldn't say that. They're fishing for commercial gain without commercial licences and outside of the commercial lobster fishery.

By DFO's own estimates, the small community of Burnt Church, which is just down the road from here, landed somewhere around 400,000 pounds of lobster out of season, under no fishing agreement, and with no aboriginal communal agreement either. That's the equivalent of 40 new lobster licences right in this community, which sustains another 100 commercial fisherman. I don't know what percentage of increase in effort that is.

It's driven Neguac fisherman to fish on the grounds of other inshore fisherman. It's severely testing the most successful of the DFO management systems. It's severely straining community relations, and not only here. We know that's so in terms of Big Cove, just down the road in the Richibucto area.

It puts a burden on everybody. It's a situation that has to be resolved. With every committee and minister we go before, we try to get some satisfaction.

We want the native peoples in the fishery, but we want them in the commercial fishery. If that takes a buy-back program for lobster licences to get them into the commercial fishery, then it should be done for the purposes of social peace and legitimate historical reasons. You shouldn't let that one fester. I think it's something your people should be addressing more extensively.

That's hardly the only lobster issue. The fact is that we must brace ourselves for an increasingly overheated fishery. There is so much riding on the lobster resource that we remain incredulous in the face of DFO's unwillingness to implement the most effective single conservation measure: a size increase for lobster. This is despite approximately three-quarters of the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence's bona fide fishermen and lobster licence holders wanting this and having advocated it since at least the late 1980s. A regime was actually started in 1990, but it was truncated after a change in ministers.

There's a group on the north side of Prince Edward Island that Mr. Easter knows well. They are still at 2.5 inches as the minimum size for lobster, while those in many other areas are at 2.75 inches. Some areas are in between.

It's absolutely essential that we find a way to harmonize the minimum size of lobster in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. They interact with one another. They feed on the same grounds. They go into the same market. There has to be a harmonization of that minimum size. We think it has to go up to at least 2.75 if we're going to protect the long-term interests of that resource, which is so productive.

• 1040

We find quite unbelievable, with the amount of preaching going on about conservation, that here is the one step that will protect the backbone of the southern gulf fishery and the politicians can't act on it. This time we selected our terms appropriately. I don't think it's a DFO problem, this one. I think it's a political one. The issue has become almost as intractable as the constitutional issue. So let no one preach conservation to us if they can't move on this one.

We will have to bring this to a close without touching on many other areas you really should be addressing. We haven't given justice to the cost-recovery issue, which is putting so many new burdens on inshore fishermen.

We haven't gone into the important herring fishery in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, nor have we said enough about the wholesale divestiture of the fishery into private hands.

In closing, we want your committee to know that we remain furious at the gradual dismantlement of the powers and operations of DFO in the gulf centre in Moncton and its gradual recentering into Halifax.

We've been reassured recently by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that there will be an announcement coming to the effect that maybe this will be reversed, but we haven't heard the announcement yet. The gulf centre has been disproportionately underfunded for some years. It's related to the theme we raised earlier in terms of the amount of funding that goes into lobster research and science.

The management authority within DFO is being passed to Halifax. We have senior DFO officials in Moncton, just as qualified as anybody in Halifax, spending half their time going down the road to Halifax to get some authorization on something that they know far better than the director general in Halifax would know. It's a waste of resources. It's removing the management further from the fishing communities. It's a language issue as well, because Halifax does not have the capability in French that Moncton clearly does.

So we hope you will take note of this. We would like to see a reversal of that erosion of the DFO gulf centre in Halifax.

Thank you for your patience in hearing us out. I hope we have a good exchange.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Belliveau.

Do any of the other witnesses want to add some information to what Mr. Belliveau said?

We'll turn, then, to questions from committee members.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Thank you very much, George.

I have some not lengthy questions, but several questions. You talked about “bona fide fishermen”. Is that a department term; a term you've applied as the MFU; or just a loose term? I'm trying to determine the significance of that terminology.

Mr. Michael Belliveau: It's a licensing policy that was evolved by our organization in cooperation with other inshore fishermen in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Yes, it's a precise name. Now, though, if you're new on the fisheries beat, you won't find it any more, because they have what they call their “core licensing” policy.

Within the core, we still operate the bona fide, but the language has been lost. We're not going to lose it, though, because we think it's a good system.

• 1045

Mr. John Duncan: Okay. Now, you talked quite a bit about lobsters, and you also expressed some concerns about the new Fisheries Act in terms of the IQs—the individual quotas, the quota system. In terms of the aboriginal fishing occurring outside of the commercial fishery, there is a recognition that the new Fisheries Act, as it was proposed in the last Parliament, would also empower the minister to basically legitimize that fishery as well.

I guess what I'm fishing for is, yes, there are concerns about the Fisheries Act. You mentioned IQs only. Do you have many other concerns with the way that act reads, other than the IQ?

The Chairman: Mr. Belliveau, I think I can explain what Mr. Duncan is getting at. You have told all the committee members that privatization is entrenched in the new act, so what he's asking you for is, what were you talking about when you said that, apart from the individual quotas? Or was that your main point? Your exact words were—

Mr. Michael Belliveau: Yes. I'm trying to sort it out with respect to the aboriginal fishery. This is where I'm perplexed.

The Chairman: No, I think that's separate. Mr. Duncan wanted to know why you said this was entrenched in the new act.

Mr. John Duncan: For instance, on the west coast, that is of significant concern. The aboriginal fisheries strategy has been challenged time after time after time, and has been challenged on the basis that the department has no statutory authority. The verdict is somewhat out on that, but it's very clear that under the proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act in the last Parliament, that would absolutely be legitimate. What I'm trying to determine from you is whether this partnership side of the new Fisheries Act is your only concern with it.

Mr. Michael Belliveau: That section I think was section 17 of the new Fisheries Act, in the draft that we've seen. We have a lot of trouble with that section, yes, and it relates to the partnerships. But the partnership arrangements can be various, they don't have to just relate to quota. They can relate to any number of fisheries or any number of groups who want to come forward and enter into an agreement with the Government of Canada.

One of the essential problems we have with that is, who gets to define who enters into what agreement with whom? We're finding that our worst case expectations are playing out. Every week, it seems now, we are discovering that some DFO official is in negotiations with some group of fishermen about some new rights to a fishery, never really considering, it seems, the impact that might have on everybody else out there who's fishing, or their future access to those resources.

Mr. John Duncan: So we're talking about the concern that we have a public resource for which the minister has full and absolute authority to cut deals with whomever they want.

Mr. Michael Belliveau: It seems like that.

Mr. John Duncan: That's a similar concern, then.

The other thing I would mention is, I'm a little confused on this minimum size on lobster. I was under the impression from earlier discussions I've had with people that part of that reason was just because you had totally different growth rates in different parts of the gulf. Is that correct?

Mr. Michael Belliveau: If you go to the Bay of Fundy, the growth rate is different. There's no point in having a minimum size under 3 1/4 or 3 3/16 inches, because they don't really reach maturity until about that size. But in the gulf, it's estimated that most would have reached maturity by 2 3/4 inches, but not at 2 1/2. The growth rate is faster in the gulf.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Godin.

• 1050

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I have several questions, and I would like you to elaborate on some of the points you mentioned briefly in your presentation, namely the issue of the Moncton office. Since I became the member for Acadie—Bathurst, I have met with a lot of fishers; some come from the Acadian peninsula region, from the Petit-Rocher region, from Pointe-Verte and from all along the coast. Some of them have told me that there should not only be offices in Moncton and Halifax, but also in the region, because sometimes they're forced to forego entire fishing days to go and get their licenses in Moncton. Could you elaborate a little on this situation and tell us if this is true and if there is a problem in the region?

• 1055

Mr. Frank McLaughlin: Of course, Mr. Godin, it would be better if we had an office in the region, but for the time being, we are fighting to at least try and keep what we have in our region, in Moncton, that we might well lose. Of course it would be better, especially for the fishers who wouldn't have to travel as far.

Mr. Yvon Godin: There are fishers who lose days on the water because they have to go and change or adjust their fishing licenses.

Mr. Frank McLaughlin: That depends on the region you're talking about. Are you talking about Tracadie?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, la Grande Anse, Caraquet—

Mr. Frank McLaughlin: There could be one in each—

Mr. Yvon Godin: No, fishers in each given region want to be able to go and get their licenses in less than an hour instead of being forced to go to Moncton and lose a full day.

Mr. Frank McLaughlin: As inshore fishers, all of our licenses are issued in the Tracadie region.

Mr. Yvon Godin: For you it is in Tracadie?

Mr. Frank McLaughlin: Yes.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Others are forced to go to Moncton, whereas you all go to Tracadie?

Mr. Frank McLaughlin: Yes.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I was under the impression you had to go to Moncton to renew your licenses.

Mr. Frank McLaughlin: No, not us, as inshore fishers. That may be the case for other licenses, but we have to go to Tracadie.

Mr. Yvon Godin: There's another issue that you did not mention in your brief, and I would like you to talk about it. I'm referring to the fact that there are inshore fishers who do not fish any lobster; some fish for cod and others groundfish and are affected by the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy. I do not think you mentioned that in your brief. There again, fishers have told me that they foresee problems with the end of TAGS scheduled for 1998. I would like you to clarify your thoughts on that.

Mr. Frank McLaughlin: Even if this issue is less of a concern for inshore fishers, there is no doubt that it concerns us. The next group of witnesses to appear will surely address the issue. The end of this program will have a huge impact on some plant workers in the peninsula.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Are some of your fishers also on TAGS?

Mr. Frank McLaughlin: Yes.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like to ask one last question on the wharfs and the impact of their closure you talked about. I have heard a lot of complaints from fishers who are afraid that if, for example, the Pointe-Verte wharf is closed, lobster fishermen will be forced to land at Petit-Rocher, even though they fish at Pointe- Verte. Their fishing days would be longer and harder. Some people think that that could work well, but in addition to all of the problems they are already facing in the fisheries, they do not need the additional burden of wharf repairs. Could you elaborate on that, since you must have a lot of experience in this field?

Mr. Frank McLaughlin: I am very happy you raised that point. Dock closures are already a serious problem, and in the future, it will get even more serious.

• 1100

It will not only be an issue of transferring our operations to another dock, but we will no longer even be able to keep our docks. There's not enough money to repair the docks; the situation is deteriorating.

We are very worried. We didn't ask for that and we are forced to take over the wharfs. We had a real problem with that during the first two years. I could certainly ask Zoël, who works on the docks in Neguac, to talk about it. We were lead to believe that we would receive a bit of money to repair the docks, but we realized after two years that that is not the case. It is a serious problem.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I have one last question, Mr. Chairman.

Another issue that was not mentioned is that herring quotas have been reduced and lobster catches were not very good this year. To give us an idea of the problem, could you compare the number of weeks a fisher worked five years ago and the situation today? I don't think that was addressed.

Mr. Frank McLaughlin: I think Mike mentioned that briefly, but did not perhaps provide enough detail. Many of our fishers are going bankrupt now. Here in the Neguac region, lobster catches landed by fishers in the spring did not even allow them to keep their licenses. They're trying to sell them and make a bit of money. That's where were at in our region today. As I was saying, there's nothing left to fish. The lobster living in the peninsula cannot be allowed to disappear. According to the examples we have, from 1993 to 1996, original quotas dropped drastically. In comparing last year to this year, there has been a 20% decrease. That is a problem for our fishers.

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine— Pabok, BQ): I do not want to be controversial, but I would like to start by welcoming the witnesses. I met several of you in a past life. And with respect to that past life, Mr. Chairman, I see that the famous debate between the mid-shore and inshore fishers has not yet been settled, but it is not quite as simple as it seems with respect to the management attitude.

I will start with a comment, and I would like a response to it. I would like to share a management philosophy. When the crab fishery started, or even a bit earlier, because this is a lucrative species we're talking about now, my father-in-law, who is now 72 years old, used to say: "Back home, we were poor; we ate lobster sandwiches at school and the rich kids ate baloney." Today it's the opposite. We can no longer afford to eat lobster.

He told me that one of his other buddies was unlucky. My father-in-law was a good cod fisher, but the other fisherman had no luck and could never keep his gear in order. He ended up fishing crab. But my father-in-law teased him, and asked him: "Could you bring me a load of that garbage so that I can fertilize my lawn?" What I'm trying to say is that the species that were not worth bothering about some time ago have now become lucrative.

The people responsible for this fishery, including shrimp, cod and crab, wanted individual quota management. If you look at the year in which the management approaches were introduced, you will not that it was during the worse years. Stocks were about five times as small as they were, and at the same time prices had dropped five-fold.

I remember having met with fishers and I thank the Lord for giving me broad enough shoulders to prevent myself from having been beat up when the time came. Some people couldn't accept losing everything. I told them that the only way to overcome the situation was to join forces. Why should you have more than your neighbour? You're in the same boat. They agreed at that point to work together. And unfortunately, it worked. The stock recovered a bit and so did the price.

• 1105

I understand that people want to improve their lot. When people ask for quotas in crab, I don't say no because I go by the principle that everyone should be able to land multiple species. But how are we going to do this? Is it by robbing Peter to pay to Paul? I don't think so.

I would like to know if the people asking for the resource have also examined their own management practices. I will give you an example, even though I am not at all an expert. If, in a region where lobster is fished, people want crab to earn a better living, which is normal, is it not first and foremost because there are too many fishers in the region? Is it the biomass that is too low or is it the price that is low that year? I do not know.

What I have also noted is that there are a lot of fishers like the ones you were representing here, in Quebec. They share your idea of competitive pools, and I respect that. But where they differ is in the fact that they have set up a marketing board for their products.

I have always thought that when you want to play the market and succeed in influencing the price, you need to be able to influence supply. That is why the cod fishers, when mobile gear catches were running low, were in a position to say: "I just got a small quota, but when I go and see my producer, if he refuses to pay a certain price, I will wait." This is what gives influence and allows them to improve their lot. Lobster fishers in Quebec, especially the one in the Magdalene Islands, have done that, and told me: "Yvan, we have been taken for a ride for too long." They set up this marketing system.

If certain fisheries sectors are not going well, and you need other resources, you have to take something from someone else. How are we going to do that? If the individual quota management approach is not working, maybe everyone should be required to have bona fide systems like yours, but that means limiting some people.

I remember that with the individual transfer of quota system, neither the federal government nor the Quebec government invested a penny to streamline the number of midshore fishers. These are people—and I see some of them in the room here—who bought each other out and said: "If you can't make a living, we will gang up and buy you out, but as for you, your fishing days are over." The government did not do that; they did the exchanges among themselves.

Is there something in your bona fide system that would make it possible to achieve that, or does the government have to do it? If that doesn't work, how can we streamline? How can we put all of these options on the table so that fishers can work and negotiate together and we can get rid of the politicians and the fish cops, the fisheries inspection officers? That is worth looking into.

Before we give you the tools, tell us what kind of tools you want. This is perhaps a long question, but I know that Mike Belliveau knows how everything works, and so do you, gentlemen. For me, this is very important.

You are right, Mike, when you say that clause 17 in the old Act, Bill C-62, already contains the Minister's discretionary power. It may still be there, if the bill is reintroduced, but at any rate, it is in the current Act: the Minister had the discretionary power to do what he sees fit.

The proof? The crab fishers, the so-called traditional fishers, were surprised to see that you also had access to the resource. Your entering the sector was at the Minister's discretion.

What type of management approach will be used? How can we give you the tools that will enable you to eliminate players, in a dignified way? Everyone must be treated fairly. That is what I would like to know.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Belliveau.

Mr. Michael Belliveau: We should keep a couple of things clear here. When we're talking about the snow crab fishery, you won't see us challenging the system overall. We're not saying they shouldn't have an individual quota system. But long before they had their individual quota system, we were asking for an inshore fishing zone on snow crab in New Brunswick and we never got it. Cape Breton has one. Prince Edward Island had one until last year when they merged with the midshore. What we're asking for is a fairly minimal share of the resources on the inshore grounds. We're not asking that our boats go to Bradelle Bank or wherever. We're asking for access to a resource that's on our fishing grounds. We're not asking for the world. We're asking for 2,000 tonnes out of...when we had 2,000, the total allowable catch that year was 20,000 tonnes. What's that? That's 10%.

• 1110

When you're talking about numbers and robbing Peter to pay Paul.... Did you know that the lobster resource in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence is roughly 15,000 tonnes? That supports 4,000 inshore enterprises with 2 workers as well as the captain on every one of those boats. So what are you talking about overall? That's what it supports.

Here you're talking about another resource, the snow crab resource. There are 15,000 tonnes of that as well. Who gets it? The 130 operations in the entire southern gulf get it. So it's not robbing Peter to pay Paul that we're talking about here. We're talking about a reasonable distribution. We're not asking them to disassemble their system, to take it apart. We're not asking them to break up a system that would affect the price in Japan or anything like that. We're asking for a 10% share for 1,400 bona fide operations in eastern New Brunswick.

I don't know whether that exactly answers your questions, but that's as clear as I can put it on the snow crab issue.

As far as rationalization of fleets is concerned, we had a really interesting example the other day. I don't even know whether I agree with it myself. In Nova Scotia the inshore fishermen in the Gulf of Nova Scotia, just down the road here in the Pictou, Antigonish, and Chéticamp area, got together and decided to buy back some quota from the midshore under a rationalization scheme. Then the midshore boycotted the groundfish meeting two days ago because this was absolutely aberrant behaviour on the part of inshore fishermen to raise their own funds and buy back quota from the midshore. It's a complicated business that we're into.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I have two comments, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Belliveau, I am happy that we are starting to agree, because you are not talking about eliminating the entire individual quota system as it was designed. So there is room for your groups; people are starting to talk about multi-species catches, as I like to put it. I'm starting to see the light.

On the topic of the most recent rationalization phenomena, you say that it might be worthwhile for inshore fishers to be able to buy mobile gear licenses. But before that can be offered to another group, it was duly defined in a contract with Fisheries and Oceans, and the fishers involved from this group said that if a license had to be withdrawn, the people should be consulted first.

What happened—and I say it before the camera—is that fishers lost all confidence in Fisheries and Oceans. Being from the Gaspé peninsula myself, I can predict that people won't want to have anything more to do with partnerships and will no longer place their trust in Fisheries and Oceans. It is as if you had a contract in due form and that you had just bought a house or something like that, and someone, a George Baker, shows up in your living room and tears the contract up. That's unacceptable. Unacceptable.

The midshore fishers, using contracts that had already been established, accepted, in good faith, to pay for all of the control and monitoring systems, the observers and everything else like that to try and domesticate their industry. That has existed for about five years. Fisheries and Oceans just tore that contract up. If I were them, I would take legal action against Fisheries and Oceans. That is unacceptable. If the Minister does not redress the situation immediately, no one will be able to trust anyone in the fisheries. The individual quota system provided a means of communication between the midshore fishers and you.

• 1115

Personally, I'm prepared to work on establishing a link once the midshore fishers have rationalized their fleet. If they want inshore fishers to share the resources, all of the members of their own committee will have to be consulted. Some junior public servant in Moncton must not be allowed to make a mistake like that. If the Minister endorses this public servant's action, I won't answer for what the midshore fishers will do. I imagine that some of them will take the floor this afternoon. I will personally will work on harmonizing the fishers in the five provinces involved. I cannot accept what has just happened. The people responsible will have to live with the consequences of their actions, but I imagine that they won't accept that either.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Comeau, a short response.

[Translation]

Mr. Réginald Comeau (Maritime Fishermen's Union): Thank you, Mr. Baker.

Brother Bernier, of course not all fishers's groups are lucky enough to have a member of Parliament who defends their interests as vigorously and tenaciously as you just did. But perhaps you should back down a bit. I know that we cannot expect your political philosophy or orientation to be different from what you've experienced.

When the decision was made to establish individual quotas, as you said earlier, stocks were already on the decline. Some people had specialized equipment to catch the small amounts of fish that were left, and the in-shore fishers were left high and dry. We had already been telling DFO and politicians for a long time that there were no more fish, no more cod.

Then the government of Canada, in conjunction with certain fishers groups, set up the individual quota system at our expense, because there were no more fish left for the inshore fishers. None was being caught, so historical catches were no longer an issue. When the individual quotas were established, the inshore fishers were left with the crumbs.

I cannot accept the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans coming here to lecture us this morning. The record of your proceedings must indicate that this is not a political debate and that we have come to share our points of view. We've been had—if I can repeat the expression you used earlier—and we do not take well to being lectured.

We have the right to live in these communities. If everyone is here to preach, we can preach too. There are coastal communities in eastern New Brunswick and along the Gaspé peninsula that have been living this way for a long time. We are not going to change from one day to the next just for a few people. Thank you very much.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer some clarification to ensure that my comments are not misinterpreted. My lashing out was not directed at you. It was simply because Mr. Belliveau had given me the opportunity to state my position on the way the official acted.

Mr. Réginald Comeau: You are not in the House of Commons here: enough is enough.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: The last thing I would like to add is that if my comments offended you, I apologize publicly.

Secondly, I am prepared to offer my services to help you get information on multi-species catches. I acknowledge that DFO has made mistakes with respect to inshore fishers; you are absolutely right. Once again, I apologize if my comments offended you.

Mr. Réginald Comeau: They did not offend me. They are skewed and unacceptable remarks. Mr. Baker, bring some order back to your committee.

[English]

The Chairman: Right, Mr. Comeau, vous avez raison.

As you can see, Mr. Comeau, we have such diverse opinions even on this committee. It makes for very lively activity, I can assure you, in the evening.

Mr. Cormier or Mr. Breau, did you want to add anything? No. We will go to two more questioners. First is the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1120

I think the last discussion here, coming on the heels of the hearings we've had in Newfoundland and Labrador and the îles-de-la-Madeleine, is appropriate. As I look at it, based on what we heard on the other stops, it seems to me we're in a situation where the traditional fishery, given the downturn in the groundfishery, is left to suffer, while new players or people who were fortunate enough to come into the system and develop either the gear types or whatever in some new species or previously not so much fished species are becoming millionaires. There is a problem with that situation as I see it.

Mike mentioned something earlier. I didn't quite catch it; probably I will in the written text. You talked about an example of—I think you said reverse quota that worked.

Mr. Michael Belliveau: Yes.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Can you give me more specifics on that?

Mr. Michael Belliveau: These gentlemen know it a lot better than I do.

The basics of it are that a quite substantial herring seine came from the west coast in the late 1960s. By the late 1960s and early 1970s we had a huge fleet of herring seiners in the southern gulf. I think in some years their landings were in the range of 300,000 tonnes. By 1980 there was no herring for anybody—inshore, midshore, whatever.

The fleet was basically disassembled. Some went off to the Bay of Fundy to try their luck there. In the end, under considerable protest by the inshore fishermen—a strong piece of work that really is one of the things that launched the Maritime Fishermen's Union—the quota allocations were reversed. Where they had throughout the 1970s 80% of the quotas in the southern gulf, they were reversed back to having 20%.

Since that time we've had a kind of cold distance with them. There is never an end to the troubles with the herring seiners in certain parts of the southern gulf.

Nevertheless, the resource recovered throughout the 1980s. I believe the TAC in some years has been close to a couple of hundred thousand tonnes if you include all groups.

The inshore gill-net fishery took 80% of that fish and continues to do so. I'm not sure that you'll find another example like it in the western world, in terms of having a really inshore fishery recover such a substantial piece of a resource as they've been able to do. It seems to work.

That doesn't mean that we don't have a lot of marketing problems, internal problems, and so on. But, as far as the resource goes, it's sustainable.

Mr. Wayne Easter: But on the B.C. fleet, comparing 1970, say, and now, the benefits of that resource are accruing to more communities than was previously the case. Is that the bottom line?

[Translation]

Mr. Réginald Comeau: Yes. By the late 1970's, there were only about 100 fishers who could make a living on herring or bring is such lucrative catches. You could count them on one hand. Since 1985, we have been harvesting herring intensively; catches totalling several million dollars have been landed in almost all communities, including those located on Prince Edward Island, along the coast of the Gaspé peninsula, in New Brunswick, in the southern gulf and on the coast of Nova Scotia.

• 1130

There are easily 3000 to 4000 inshore vessels that can bring a rather sizeable income to the coast, not including the number of hours of work that are generated in the plants, whether it be for extracting roe or processing smoked herring.

I am aware that work still needs to be done to try and refine our landings and conquer more lucrative markets, like the ones in Europe. But the fact remains that herring stocks have recovered and appear healthy. Quotas still need to be adjusted in keeping with the biomass, but I do not think that there is a better success story than the rebuilding of the herring stocks. That has enabled many communities, even hundred of communities, to make a living.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Easter, a short comment?

Mr. Wayne Easter: I think that's valuable for us and leads to my next question. Where do we go from here in terms of managing the groundfishery in the future?

I understand what you're talking about in terms of crabs. There, again, we're making millionaires, and I think your example clearly shows that the way you're doing the crab allocation, money is coming from the sea and coming back and being spread out amongst the community in a reasonable, fair, and rationalized way.

But in terms of the future of the groundfishery, we know that TAGS was put in place under the assumption the groundfishery would come back. We know now that it's not looking good for probably 10 years. At the same time we're having people say to us, we have to get more and more into the under-utilized species, whether it's capelin or other species.

My concern is this. Because the cod isn't coming back and the groundfish basically isn't coming back, are we going to exploit these under-utilized species to the extent that we eliminate the chances for the groundfishery to come back because some of those species are the food for the fish chain? I'm wondering what your thoughts are on that. How do we manage it in a way whereby we can share what resources are available but at the same time still give the groundfish a chance to come back over a decade or whatever?

The Chairman: Who wants to take that one?

Mr. Michael Belliveau: There are virtually no under-utilized species left in the world, in my judgment, and it's largely mythical to expect that there's much more that really can be gotten out of the ocean than we've been doing over the last while.

An example we have right on our coast, a very difficult one, are these rock crabs, a small inshore crab. There are some fishermen who want to make it a directed fishery. Then we have a whole other group who say, leave it alone, leave it as a by-catch. That's the way it's been for the lobster fishery for years. It should be a by-catch.

I don't see there's really that much room for expansion for under-utilized species unless you want to go after...there are two that are under-utilized out there. I shouldn't have said that. The seals are clearly under-utilized, and if you can't utilize them in the marketplace just do a cull. It's becoming clearer and clearer that the seals, while they didn't cause the groundfish to collapse, are preventing the recovery, and I think the scientists are coming to that point too. They love juvenile fish and they're intercepting...we're seeing no new year classes coming in. Who's doing that? Either the cod aren't reproducing or the seals are having a feast.

• 1135

The other underutilized one—to contradict myself about no underutilized species—would be the dogfish. That's something there may be a future with. People are doing some interesting experiments with some of the fluids in the dogfish, right in Quebec City, as a matter of fact. This may be very promising for the value of the dogfish. It functions as a test.

So if you could get them to be better utilized, we'd go along with that.

The Chairman: You don't have any whelks around here, do you, or winkles? You're not into that?

Mr. Michael Belliveau: Well, I'm sure we are.

The Chairman: Beef buckets?

Mr. Michael Belliveau: We aren't.

The Chairman: In Newfoundland we use beef buckets for them now.

We go now to MP Bill Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I apologize if I'm asking a question that's already been raised, because I did leave for a couple of minutes.

Mr. Belliveau, in your presentation you made some reference to buying back quotas. That's something new to me. I wonder whether you would elaborate a little further on what you were talking about there, or what you meant.

Mr. Michael Belliveau: About two-thirds to three-quarters of the groundfish resources in Atlantic Canada are held on paper in quotas by individual companies or individual fishing operations. Once your groundfish collapsed it seemed to us that we shouldn't reopen the fishery the way it closed.

How does the Government of Canada get into a position where it could look at alternatives? Our proposal was to go in there, and instead of buying back the fisherman's.... Say he had to leave the fishery forever. Go into the marketplace, as it were, and buy back the quota. That way it gives the individual fisherman a break. He earns a little bit of money. He can go into another fishery if he so desires.

In the meantime, then, you have your resource back into common hands, back into the hands of the government planners, as it were. How could we ever get a reverse of a quota from 80% to 20%, as we used in herring, if you didn't do something like that?

We often get mischaracterized on this, or I personally get mischaracterized. We recognize that fishermen have gone into extremely difficult circumstances with that collapse. We're not trying to take their future fishery away from them. We're not asking for that. We're asking for a buy-back system. We're prepared to look at a buy-back system in our own fishery, because we see some of them being overheated—lobster and so on.

I would say that in terms of your future programs, such as TAGS, we're not really the organization to comment. We don't have a lot of people on TAGS. As far as the buy-back component of the TAGS, I think it should be there again, and I think it should be there in a big way, but you have to go at it differently. To ask a fisherman to forever exit the fishery is a bigger question than to ask him what he would offer for his quota.

Mr. Bill Matthews: You basically buy back his life. I mean, in my view—and this is where I'm confused—the quota is a common resource. It's the people's resource. It belongs to the people. Why would you then pay someone to buy that back from him?

Do you see what I'm saying? I'm obviously missing a point here.

Mr. Michael Belliveau: No, it's a really good question. I'm sure a lot of people would ask the same one. How do you compensate that person?

That's when we need that buy-back. You have to compensate him for his history, his investment, and so on and so forth.

Mr. Bill Matthews: For sure. That's what they did with the buy-outs, actually. They looked at his earnings over a period of time, took back the licence and gave him x dollars.

Mr. Michael Belliveau: But they told him he could never fish again.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes.

Mr. Michael Belliveau: Most of our fishermen, and most fishermen along the coast, wouldn't even look at something like that.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Sure.

On the lobster—and I don't know if this question was asked before; if so, I apologize—why is DFO so reluctant to increase the size from 2.5 to 2.75? What reason have they given you for that?

You've mentioned conservation. We're all supposed to be so concerned about that. Why have they, for such a long period of time, refused to go to that size? The answer may be obvious, but not to me.

• 1140

Mr. Wayne Easter: We could have a debate on that one.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Okay. I'm just looking for clarification; I can't understand. If they've been at this since 1980, trying to get this increase and it hasn't been done, and if it's a conservation measure, why the hell is it not done?

The Chairman: Mr. Breau, did you want to add something to that?

Mr. Zoël Breau (Secretary Treasurer, Maritime Fishermen's Union): He was asking why. When you don't want something to move, you ask for consensus; when you don't need consensus, you just go ahead and do it and after that people fight over it.

That's basically what's happening on lobster. Everybody's having all of the different excuses in the world not to move. We tend to see science as the reason for certain things, but when it doesn't work for our reasoning of the thing, the science doesn't work. So show us the science; that's exactly what Wayne said.

If most of the science is in your mind and you have to deal with the 500 people who are really against it, and maybe a little bit more, consensus is something that's really hard to get when it comes to that.

The Chairman: Mr. Breau, your first sentence was a quotable quote—excellent. I'll have to write that one down.

We'll go to Mr. Hubbard for our conclusion.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Probably, Mr. Chairman, I would just put on the record...and we are running behind schedule and we have to apologize, but I think, George, we're planning to break for lunch about 1.15 p.m. For those who are here, the lunch period will also include a visit by the committee to the local fish plant, Blue Cove, and we'll be returning for our presentations, according to what we've arranged here today, at 2.45 p.m.

Mr. Belliveau, when I heard you with your overall philosophy this morning, I couldn't help but think of your father, who some 30 years ago was also preaching equal opportunity. When my friend Yvon mentioned Peter and Paul, I think that was the case in New Brunswick back in the 1960s.

For the record, I think there's one minor point here, or probably a major point that we should have your opinion on. I know the inshore fishery has had multi-licences, and in the interest of conservation, many inshore fishermen over the years did not fish all those licences. I think probably in the hall today we have a number of fisher people who have held licences in the groundfish and other species for maybe 15 or 20 or 100 years, and for the last 10 years or so they didn't use them. There seems to be some evidence to indicate that in some DFO circles they are going to attempt to say that if a licence was not used, then it might be forfeited.

I think we should get on the record today your position in terms of the importance of those licences that could be looked upon with jaundiced eye when we look at the cod fishery in particular, and the fact that some good conversationalists in our group have conserved the cod by not fishing it for many years. If certain people in white shirts and blue suits think that licence should be taken for that reason, what would be your position?

Mr. Michael Belliveau: Mr. Hubbard, our position was pretty clear back in 1992 when Crosbie tried to take those licences. We put up an enormous fight on that, and finally they basically returned those groundfish licences.

It was on the precise basis that you're talking about, that under the bona fide licensing system one of the ideas was to build up a portfolio of licences, but you didn't use them at all times. If right at the centre of the bona fide policy was a non-use-it-or-lose-it and here was the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans saying, if you don't use your licence we're taking it.... Well, that was a battle we won. We're quite proud of that. So our position is quite clear.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, and thank you to the Maritime Fishermen's Union for an excellent presentation. We're going to be reviewing the presentation in detail before we give our report. Thank you very much for coming here today.

• 1145

Mr. Michael Belliveau: Thank you.

The Chairman: We'll take a short, two-minute break while the Miramichi watershed organization.... Mr. Mills and Mr. Price, could you please take your positions at the table as witnesses?

• 1146

• 1152

The Chairman: Order. Would the MPs take their seats, please. We are now reconvening.

We have as witnesses from the Miramichi Watershed Management Committee Mr. Alex Mills, Mr. Manley Price, Mr. Grant Ross, and Mr. Bruce Whipple. Mr. Mills, would you like to start?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Excuse me, but people in the region know that I am not normally a guy who runs away from problems. I am happy to be here today, but I will have to leave at 1:45 p.m., because in my capacity as employment insurance critique, I have to fly to Regina from Bathurst at 4:10 p.m. I will be participating in meetings there tomorrow. So I wouldn't want you to think that Yvon Godin had snuck out. I wanted to make that announcement so that people know what is going on. My responsibilities are taking me to Regina this afternoon.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Godin, as long as it's concerning something as important as employment insurance, which affects your entire riding and my riding and everybody else's riding and the fishermen, then we'll forgive you for leaving early.

We'll go to our witnesses. Mr. Mills.

Mr. Alex Mills (Secretary, Miramichi Watershed Management Committee Inc.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and honourable members of Parliament. Certainly it's a pleasure to welcome you to the Miramichi. I might say briefly and as a preliminary matter that we are here representing the Miramichi Watershed Management Committee Inc., which is an incorporated body representing recreational fishing interests on the Miramichi.

What I might do is just give a brief introduction of the gentlemen who are with me. Grant Ross is a director of the watershed committee . He is a paid employee of the Miramichi Salmon Association and as such is working full-time on conservation matters. Manley Price is the manager of Avenor, Inc., their interest on the Miramichi. They're relating to recreational fisheries and conservation. He also is employed full-time in that capacity. Bruce Whipple is also a director, as is Manley, if I missed that. Bruce is a director and I believe he's president of another conservation organization, the Northumberland Salmon Protective Association.

• 1155

I've given copies of our written brief to the committee. I might take some direction from you, Mr. Chairman, as to whether or not you want me to read the brief into the record or simply go through it in an abbreviated manner.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Mills, I think the committee would appreciate it, because we're going to be going over each of these briefs with a fine-tooth comb and doing our own summaries. If you could summarize it in your own words we'll go through these briefs faster.

Mr. Alex Mills: We'll do that. Taking that as a commitment that you will go through it with a fine-tooth comb, in return I would certainly do you the courtesy of giving you a précis.

We certainly are very pleased that the fisheries and oceans committee is here on the Miramichi. Obviously there is a variety of fish species that inhabit these waters that are of interest to both the recreational fisheries and the commercial fisheries. The fact, however, is that the soul of the Miramichi is the Atlantic salmon. One need only look at the ancient history in the settlement along its rivers by the aboriginals to see that this ready food source drew people many thousands of years ago. If one looks at it on a modern day, all you have to do is look at the cultural, social, and economic activity surrounding Atlantic salmon to see how important that particular fish species is in its own right as well as to humans.

Our organization is made up of a variety of interests. I think if you look at the last page of the brief you'll see an actual list of our members. I believe I'm correct in saying that the majority of our members are conservation organizations. All the native bands on the river are members. We're very fortunate to have large forestry companies that are members. Noranda is a member. All told we have certainly a very good representation from all those who have interests in the Atlantic salmon fishery here on the Miramichi.

I did a quick poll yesterday in preparing our brief to try to get a handle on what our members themselves spend on conservation and protection of salmon on an annual basis. From talking to several people, minimally it's $500,000. Those are funds that we are putting into the conservation and enhancement of the Atlantic salmon fishery on the Miramichi. Those funds are from the community.

Our objectives overall are to participate in the management of the recreational fisheries on the Miramichi. We are one of those bodies with whom DFO is discussing partnerships and co-management, etc. We've been in existence for approximately two and a half years. We were actually founded as a result of the federal-provincial subagreement on recreational fisheries. We won a permanent body that came out of that particular subagreement.

We are anxious to assume whatever management responsibilities the governments, both federal and provincial, are prepared to delegate to us. Of course that in turn probably depends on how much the government feels we are able to handle.

• 1200

The Province of New Brunswick is very hesitant about community involvement in watershed management. I believe I'm correct in saying that the commercial net fisheries or the commercial fisheries, to the extent they're operating in tidal waters, perhaps don't have the complications of having to bring the province into the process.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been 100% supportive of the idea of community management. The provincial officials are being good Missourians. They want to be shown this is a valid concept. We are continuously meeting with them. We've actually prepared a draft of the memorandum of understanding that will give us a formalized structure for our participation in the management.

• 1205

I know in Newfoundland, as some members are probably aware, there have been memorandums of understanding signed and in place where both the federal government and the provincial government have delegated certain responsibilities to committees similar to ours. That is certainly our objective.

I want to give you a bit of a profile of the value of the recreational fishery, and primarily the recreational Atlantic salmon fishery, on the Miramichi. The annual expenditures run at approximately $25 million. The employment is approximately 600 jobs. The federal share of sales tax is approximately $1.6 million. The provincial share of sales tax is approximately $2.7 million. Those figures predate our combining the GST and provincial sales tax into the HST. I didn't have the opportunity or the knowledge to go through the calculations for the new regime.

I will touch on this later but the Miramichi has benefit of having both public fisheries and private fisheries. The presence of the private fishing adds—and I've used a very conservative figure—a minimum of somewhere between $25 million and $50 million to the value of riparian property. On occasion, individual properties exchange hands for in excess of $1 million. A two-thirds interest sold within the last five or six years for $6 million I am told, and that's the largest in one particular facility.

That gives you some idea of the economics. If you can translate that into fish killed, last year a rough estimate is that we probably killed somewhere around 20,000 grilse on the system and that brings it to over $1,000 per fish in value. So it's a fairly lucrative return on the kill of fish. It adds a pretty high value to the salmon we're catching.

• 1210

Obviously, like most fish stocks, Atlantic salmon are in a dramatic state of decline. In 20 years we've dropped from approximately 1 million Atlantic salmon returning to North America to somewhere under 200,000 this last year. We're fortunate here on the Miramichi that approximately 50% of those 200,000 North American fish come back to this river, which again is a statement of the stature of the Miramichi in respect to Atlantic salmon.

While it's very easy to dwell on the Atlantic salmon, other recreational fisheries resources also are native to the Miramichi. We have brook trout, and perhaps the sea run brook trout is the pinnacle of that species. We also have shad and striped bass. Both contribute to the recreational fisheries, but they certainly pale in comparison to the benefit that the Atlantic salmon brings to the area.

So we've had an 80% decline in North American Atlantic salmon stocks over the last 20 years, and the question is, what is the problem? The problems can be generally divided into two categories: those problems that occur in the river and those that occur at sea. I believe I'm correct in saying that in respect to the river-related problems, although they are not to be minimized, it's been proven that on the Miramichi—and I'm speaking for the Miramichi only, rather than other rivers in eastern Canada—our habitat degradation is not nearly as bad as it is in some other areas. So we are fortunate that at least we can raise the salmon to the smolt stage in the river without major concerns about habitat loss.

I cite in our brief one example of the quality of the water on the Miramichi, which is the fact that when I'm fishing, I don't hesitate to drink the water. That's only one small statement, and it's not intended to mislead. Certainly we must be ever vigilant about the quality of our salmon habitat.

As a brief example, look at the participation in our watershed committee, and as important in dollars, the participation of companies such as Avenor, Noranda, J.D. Irving, and Repap. That shows a much higher level of environmental consciousness and commitment to our water resources and our fisheries than has existed in the past, and that bodes well for the future. If you see the work of the large forestry companies in respect to road-building, culverts, and bank reinforcement, there's been a fairly dramatic change in the last few years.

Generally it seems to be accepted that the problems that the Atlantic salmon is facing are occurring somewhere between the estuaries and Greenland in most cases, or somewhere out in the north Atlantic.

In any case, with that background, it's our intention to specifically apprise the committee of several issues. There are six in particular: the problems that the Atlantic salmon is facing in the north Atlantic; the question of government cutbacks and the impact that has; the question of the divestiture of the South Esk Salmon Enhancement Centre here on the Miramichi, which is the oldest Atlantic salmon hatchery in Canada; problems with regulatory matters and shortfalls in regulations; the whole question of watershed management; and aboriginal fisheries.

• 1215

Having said that, I'll go directly to the problems pertaining to Atlantic salmon. I am told by persons far more knowledgeable on the matter than I that we don't have a clear handle on what is causing the precipitous decline in Atlantic salmon stocks. You hear of changing ocean temperatures, collapse of their food base, and global warming. A variety of problems are identified, and no one has been clearly established as the single cause. In fact it may be a combination of all these things.

Global warming types of problems are very hard to address, and I believe the Atlantic Salmon Federation is intending to tackle this question in a large effort to raise funds and gain commitment from government and private sectors to address the problems. That effort may at least be able to identify whether global warming is a problem. If in fact global warming is the problem, it becomes a massive issue. If it is cyclical changes in ocean temperatures, then we will have to wait that out.

But there are some issues that have been identified as possibly contributing to the problem, and those we implore this committee to take up in the House of Commons and with DFO. We are advised that there may be overfishing of capelin and shrimp, contrary to what Mr. Easter said. I do accept that my information is second-hand, but I think step one is to determine if there is depletion in that fodder, or food base, for salmon.

When Mr. Easter questioned whether capelin might be underutilized, it was interesting to hear the response from the MFU, which was that to their knowledge, there are no underutilized species, with the exception of seals. We raise it as a question, as a matter for this committee to pursue.

The Chairman: So you said capelin and shrimp. Okay.

Mr. Alex Mills: Again, it is established that those are certainly a large part of the food base of Atlantic salmon. As to the state of those stocks, it's not included in our brief, but it sure seems obvious to me that if your cattle are having a problem or you're having problems raising cattle, you don't cut all your hay and try to make a living selling hay. You have to leave that food base.

The commercial fishery off Labrador is continuing, and I know it's a delicate matter. I know, from conversations with people, that there are not a lot of alternatives for those people in that area. Maybe the challenge is to somehow come up with alternatives to fishing those Atlantic salmon. We certainly have to take the position that at this point in time, that fishery should be eliminated.

• 1220

I can never request the elimination of fisheries without repeating that it has a human issue attached to it. Those are large problems and resources have to be directed to resolving them. I know the TAGS program, as an example, showed how complicated the matter is, but we can't sacrifice species for human interests.

There has to be a large commitment from government, and I know it's the last thing the Government of Canada or representatives of the Parliament of Canada want to hear. That commitment has to be matched by dollars. If we are going to address this problem, it has to be addressed meaningfully, not only with the moral commitment, with the policy commitment, but as well with dollars.

One reassurance is that it's very clear from the dollar commitment of the members of our organization and from the history of salmon conservation that the private sector will contribute its share. The Atlantic Salmon Federation, other international organizations, and local conservation organizations annually raise millions of dollars towards salmon conservation. Without ever having discussed this with the Atlantic Salmon Federation, I will guarantee you that they are out there raising millions of dollars to address this problem, and we have to keep that in mind when they come to government looking for money.

One looks at the compensation program that kept Greenland Atlantic salmon fishermen off the waters for a couple of years. Millions of dollars were raised almost instantly by Atlantic salmon conservationists. That is some reassurance that public dollars will be matched by private dollars.

With respect to the problems facing the Atlantic salmon, it is certainly our recommendation that this committee urge the Government of Canada, in the House of Commons and wherever else, to strongly support this initiative that's being made by the Atlantic Salmon Federation. It requires a commitment of new resources. We cannot take resources from existing Atlantic salmon programs to solve this. It needs new dollars.

As an example, it's my understanding that the Miramichi receives approximately 60% of the Atlantic salmon budget for the maritimes. We would scream bloody murder, of course, if it was simply a question of shoving those dollars over to address the high seas problem. It needs new dollars. We're at a very minimal level in terms of federal government dollars right now. We cannot afford, we cannot stand, any further reduction.

It is also our recommendation that steps—and meaningful steps—be taken to examine the effect of the capelin and shrimp fisheries and to eliminate the Labrador fishery—I beg your pardon?

Mr. Bill Matthews: And St. Pierre and Miquelon.

Mr. Alex Mills: Yes, excuse me, and St. Pierre and Miquelon, if I could add that to our recommendations.

I touch on St. Pierre and Miquelon in this, but with the permission of the committee, I would add that to the recommendations we are making.

Also, I think it is incumbent on Canada, because of the size of our Atlantic salmon fishery, to use as much pressure as possible to get the support and cooperation of other countries that fish the North Atlantic and that have salmon stocks, to bring them onside in this effort.

From there, I would go to the question of government cutbacks. I am advised by officials in DFO that the inland fisheries segment of the Government of Canada's constitutional responsibility has suffered the largest cutback in the recent downsizing. There has been a disproportionate cutback in recreational and inland fisheries. I raise the question as to whether or not the Canadian government, at its current funding level, is currently meeting its constitutional obligations to conserve and protect salmon.

• 1225

It seems clear that the Government of Canada would like to get out of inland fisheries. If they attempted to do so, that would certainly be a breach of their constitutional obligations. In some provinces there has been delegation of this to the province already. There are some things that would recommend that. One administration over inland fisheries does have benefits, but certainly DFO cannot delegate to the province—or to anybody else—without matching what is delegated with dollars.

Aside from the constitutional obligations with respect to inland fisheries, there is also a clear economic justification or rationale for staying involved or delegating to the province with the appropriate dollars, and that is the very economies that we addressed at the beginning here. The Miramichi is only one example. The Newfoundland rivers generate the same kinds of dollars, like the Quebec rivers and the Labrador rivers. You must maintain that commitment, and if you do, the payback is there.

I want to cite the following as one example. Under the now expired federal-provincial subagreement on recreational fisheries, dollars were contributed to marketing our Atlantic salmon resource, our recreational fisheries, in New Brunswick. In fact, there were dollars committed specifically to marketing the Atlantic salmon on the Miramichi.

Through that same period, from 1990 to 1995, there was a decline in actual salmon numbers, but because of the assistance given to outfitters and matched by outfitters, there was an actual growth in non-resident expenditures on the Miramichi. It was a doubling of the non-resident expenditures relating to Atlantic salmon on the Miramichi, a doubling from $3.6 million to $7.2 million. The return on the investment is there if the dollars are committed.

As I say, the financial assistance provided under that subagreement was in the vicinity of $300,000 to $400,000 for the whole outfitting sector in New Brunswick on the Miramichi. Overall it might have been $50,000, $60,000, or $70,000. There is good payback for that kind of an investment.

If we're talking about government cutbacks, of course, we are beyond the bare-bones limit with respect to enforcement. There has to be protection of our fish in the rivers. If there is a cause that contributes to the decline of Atlantic salmon in our rivers, I would venture to say that more than habitat degradation it is illegal fishing of one kind or another. And you can only address that through having the staff to get out there on the river.

With respect to government cutbacks, it is our recommendation that the federal government review its financial commitment to inland fisheries and to Atlantic salmon, and if the federal government wants out of inland fisheries, then it must do a proper delegation with funding from the province. I believe the province would quite readily take over the administration or the management of all inland fisheries.

• 1230

The next issue I wish to address—and I'm on page 10 of our brief—is the issue of the South Esk Hatchery. I don't know if Mr. Hubbard wants to lead this one or not. I know he has a very strong opinion, like us, in respect to the divestiture of the South Esk Hatchery.

We have argued against this strongly. We have fought it and resisted it. Members of our committee have been to Ottawa. We've pulled on every ear in Ottawa that we thought might listen, to no avail.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans seems determined to remove itself from hatcheries here on the east coast. It seems to us that there was some fuzzy thinking behind it. There were some very facile and inappropriate efforts to compare the hatchery roles here with the hatchery roles on the west coast, where they have been disastrous. This facility, the South Esk Hatchery, is the oldest Atlantic salmon hatchery in Canada. That in itself gives it.... It has been in continuous operation since 1850. It is a heritage site that DFO should have held onto.

Our watershed committee was faced with the very hard decision of simply fighting the divestiture, or fighting it on the one hand and with the other hand trying to marshal whatever resources we could to ensure that this hatchery did continue. In the end, the South Esk Hatchery has been turned over to our watershed committee. We are in phase one of that divestiture process, which will result in us owning that hatchery.

We have, again, tried to get DFO or the government—whatever department of the federal government—to be realistic in transitional funding to ensure that hatchery survives. It has not been prepared to fund us. There are other hatcheries in Prince Edward Island, I understand, and in Nova Scotia, where for some reason greater transitional funding was made available. We had asked for $300,000 in transitional funding for us, the community of Miramichi, to carry out the constitutional responsibilities of the Government of Canada. We were looking for $300,000 in transitional funding for that purpose. We were allowed $150,000.

We're not sure that we can pull it off. We have fish there at the moment, trout and salmon. We're in operation. We have a licensing agreement with an operator. We are approaching this on a private business basis. All fish that will be raised there will be sold. Some of our members will be customers. We are scraping and chasing every possible financial source to make this work, but are not at all sure we can pull this off. We needed an extra $150,000. That was based on very clear financial analysis.

We jumped. We don't know what's going to happen or how we're going to land. We are not prepared to let that facility go by the wayside—unlike the federal government. By “we” I mean the community of the Miramichi.

• 1235

It is our recommendation that this committee bring all pressure to bear to secure the additional $150,000 that we need to be guaranteed that this hatchery will continue to exist.

The next topic—I'm on page 12 of our brief—pertains to watershed management. It seems very clear from the policy and legislative initiatives over the last several years that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is tending toward the community management of resources and partnering with the private sector. It also is apparent that they see the wisdom of watershed management certainly on an inland fisheries basis.

It's in response to these policies and through the subagreements I mentioned earlier that this committee has come into existence. We are very reassured that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is clearly committed to the concept of community watershed management. They have gone to bat for us repeatedly with the province in an effort to bring the province to an agreement that would provide the framework or the structure for us to have some formalized input and participation in the management of our recreational fisheries here on the Miramichi.

I'm not sure why the Newfoundland government was willing to do what the New Brunswick government wouldn't, but there should be some lessons there for the New Brunswick government.

I'm not sure what the future of the proposed fisheries act is, but from having looked at it briefly, I'm not sure it provides the support for the community participation and partnering in inland fisheries or recreational fisheries that it does for commercial fisheries.

We're reassured that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans supports the notion and concept of community watershed management, and we certainly are asking and recommending that the notion be carefully developed and pursued by the federal government. There should be some continuing support or effort from the Government of Canada to convince the provincial government of the wisdom of this approach to fisheries management.

In respect to regulations, we are advised by DFO managers locally that they are hamstrung in their efforts to manage the fisheries properly by not having the flexibility to make regulations for individual lakes, streams, areas, or whatever. They cannot manage on a micro basis in the context of inland fisheries as they need to.

Repeatedly, local DFO officials have made recommendations to DFO in Ottawa to streamline regulations that would give them this ability to respond to problems, as I say, on a micro-basis. Repeatedly, it has fallen on deaf ears.

It would be awfully nice if this committee could invite somebody from DFO to testify as to why that has not occurred. This is a simple, internal DFO matter. It is simply a question of Ottawa not acting or following up on valid recommendations from its managers in the field.

• 1240

Therefore we would recommend, as I've already said, that DFO be called upon to explain why they have failed to act upon these requests by local managers and that they be compelled to enact these changes.

Finally—I'm on page 14 of our brief—while we have native bands that participate and are members of our committee, we do not see ourselves as having the authority to speak on their behalf on this occasion. I will offer to you the one comment that has come up in our meetings, which is a criticism of the aboriginal fishing strategy.

Actually, let me back up one step and say first of all that there is no doubt that there have been dramatic advances in the management of aboriginal fisheries on the Miramichi in the last few years. I think DFO and the bands have done a good job there. That's not to say there aren't problems. And that's not to say that there aren't problems in the recreational fishery. But one very clear point that has been made to us by the bands is that merit or achievement in the field of conservation and protection is not rewarded by DFO. There is no incentive—or not the incentive that there should be—for strong conservation and protection by the bands of their own fisheries.

There is one example...and I didn't have the opportunity to confirm the accuracy of this with DFO, but I believe this is correct. Prior to this last season, it would have been possible for one conservation-oriented band with a responsible approach to their fisheries to sign their fishing agreement before the season and get the funding that went with it, while another band, less concerned about conservation, could stall through the whole season, fish without adhering to regulations, and get the same dollars. They could sign the agreement at the end of the season and get the dollars.

Obviously you're penalizing the bands that are prepared to sign agreements in a timely fashion and to respect those agreements. There have to be incentives and rewards for conservation and responsible activities in whatever fishery.

With respect to the aboriginal fisheries, it is our recommendation that steps be taken to ensure that those bands that establish strong conservation and protection programs in furthering their aboriginal fisheries fishing rights be rewarded for doing so.

Finally, in conclusion, I have a commitment from the chairman that our brief will be gone over with a fine-tooth comb, and that's all we can ask of you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: This is what I was going to say, Mr. Mills. I read your brief while you were speaking. You've given more detail than what's in your brief.

Mr. Alex Mills: Sorry.

The Chairman: That's quite all right, Mr. Mills.

We want to go to questions now, and we want to be fairly brief with these questions if we're to meet our schedule. First of all, Mr. Mills, I'll just ask a question on behalf of all the committee members.

The committee members were shocked to learn the other day of the existence of a thriving commercial salmon fishery on the south coast of Newfoundland that is run by France. There was only one committee member here who knew how extensive it was, and that's the member, MP Bill Matthews, whose entire riding is on the south coast of Newfoundland. The federal government outlawed all of the commercial salmon fishery there, because we were told that this was Miramichi salmon. This is what we were told when the buy-outs took place. The south coast of Newfoundland? Mr. Matthews had informed us that all the nets had been bought up by the fishermen from France, and we received evidence during this trip that this was in fact the case. Every single commercial fisherman bought out had sold his nets to the French from France.

• 1245

I want to ask you the question. In the way these nets are set, when you set a normal commercial salmon net—I'm sure Mr. Bernier and some other members have set commercial salmon gear; I have, when I was a young fellow—you set it about three or four feet below the surface. At least that's what we used to do. But what they're doing is running the nets tied to each other. The zone that's being used is of course mid-distance from Newfoundland, out to eighty miles and in a zone twelve miles wide. That's what the court gave France three years ago. What effect do you believe this is having on the Miramichi salmon?

Mr. Alex Mills: There's no question that this kind of an illegal fishery is horrendous—and I use “illegal” in a conservation sense, although perhaps “illegal” is not the correct word, because it may be legal to France. But that's not something that is readily known. In fact, it's not something that I was aware of, but it would have a devastating effect on our fish. That's obviously where our fish are coming from—down the south coast, across Newfoundland by Port aux Basques, and then on into our gulf rivers. That would have a devastating effect if they are somehow blocking that off.

You ask me what I think you should do about it. Send out a gunboat.

The Chairman: In your opinion, at-sea interception is perhaps the most important thing that we should be addressing.

Mr. Alex Mills: Absolutely, if that's an identifiable problem that can be attacked immediately.

The Chairman: Mr. Matthews, do you have anything to add to this? The buying up of your nets in your district, in your riding, was a fairly common practice, as we have heard from evidence from some fishermen. As for the commercial fishery, neither I nor committee members were aware that it was as extensive as it is.

Mr. Bill Matthews: There was always a salmon fishery in St. Pierre and Miquelon, but it has really expanded and exploded over the last few years. They have bought nets from Newfoundland fishermen from the along the south coast, the Burin Peninsula in particular. And yes, it's become rather a big fishery there.

Mr. Alex Mills: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, where those fish are going. Are they going to France, or wherever?

Mr. Bill Matthews: I'm not sure where they're going. I don't know. But there is a pretty extensive salmon fishery.

The Chairman: They're called Atlantic salmon, and they're marketed in Europe and around the world. I imagine some of it is marketed here in Canada, but it's termed Atlantic salmon.

Mr. Alex Mills: Clearly that's something that can be addressed by the Government of Canada in however one deals with international fisheries: negotiations; pressures of one kind or another; or as I say, do as the honourable Premier of Newfoundland has done in the past, and get tough. I realize they're French waters, but it's not a—

The Chairman: But they're your salmon.

Mr. Alex Mills: They're our salmon—

The Chairman: They're Miramichi salmon.

Mr. Alex Mills: —and they're in transit. If stocks were up, you could always offer some rationale or justification for some quota to the Greenlanders as a grazing fee, obviously, but not salmon in transit. I don't see how they could justify taking those fish. It seems to me that this is theft of our fish.

The Chairman: Let me go to members for questions after one further thing, and that's the first salmon hatchery in Canada. Of course we're all sorry and find it unbelievable that the federal government would let that hatchery go. Mr. Hubbard, as you know, has conducted a very strong personal campaign in Ottawa against the closure. The first thing we noted from your brief was your request, which undoubtedly this committee and all committee members will address in their report to Parliament.

• 1250

I want to go to a couple of questions if we can be fairly brief. First is the spokesperson for the official opposition in the House of Commons, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you very much.

Thank you for your brief. I'll go by page number, because I think that's the easiest route to take. On page 10 of your document you're talking about the logic of DFO divesting of the hatchery. Within that statement you talk about the disastrous west coast experience with hatcheries. Being from the west coast, I want to say if DFO doesn't want to fund something it will find a rationale.

We have many successful hatcheries on the west coast and they tend to be the smaller ones. They were starved out earlier and DFO kept funding the large ones. Now it wants to get out of them. The large ones are an obvious problem because they genetically swamp the wild population. Perhaps we could insert the word “large” in front of hatcheries, as it's closer to the truth. That's a comment, not a question. I just wanted to point that out.

Could you give us an idea of what the annual operating budget for the South Esk Hatchery was for DFO?

Mr. Alex Mills: It was in the vicinity of $200,000 in recent years.

Mr. John Duncan: So you're really saying you want one and a half years' worth of operating budget.

Mr. Alex Mills: That's correct.

Mr. John Duncan: That puts it in scale for us, I think.

You talk about the need for devolution of authority for the management of the river on a micro-basis and so on. We have the same problem everywhere with DFO. Every decision a field person makes is subject to being overturned by a phone call from the region or from Ottawa five minutes later. This is a constant complaint I get at home. There's a real command and control system in place. It doesn't allow for the local flexibility we need. So I agree with you, we need some authority to allow this to happen.

I will try to take it one step further with you. You indicate in your brief—and I didn't realize—there's no tidal water angling or salmon angling licence in New Brunswick. There certainly is on the west coast, as you know. Those licences raise an awful lot of revenue. I'm wondering if you will be the new stewards of the river system if you are given the statutory authority to issue the licences and keep the revenue. But before you answer that one I just want to finish.

My earlier comments on the aboriginal fishery strategies to the previous witnesses were possibly misconstrued. On the aboriginal commercial fishery, I was talking from a British Columbia perspective, and we want one commercial fishery. This is what the MFU also said. We already have 30% aboriginal participation in that fishery. We agree that government can intervene and increase the component of aboriginals within that existing commercial fishery—that's an industry-wide perspective—but do it in a way that retains one commercial fishery. I want to make that clarification, because I think people maybe misconstrue that. There's no need for comment on that unless you choose to, but I'd like to hear you comment on my previous question.

• 1255

Mr. Alex Mills: That's an intriguing notion of a tidal licence that would be used first for the usual purposes of licensing for control and with some benefit to the watershed committee. As you know, normally licensing is a provincial responsibility, but I do believe that in tidal water it's the federal government's field or jurisdiction.

One of the problems is that we have talked to the provincial government and it's their hesitation and their reluctance in respect to our committee that has prevented us from having a real source of funding. We are a volunteer organization. Unfortunately, we're scrambling hither and yon trying to get money to operate day to day. We have no paid staff and we need a funding source. It is an intriguing idea that there could be some possibility of some delegation from DFO coupled with a licensing in tidal waters. Those are my thoughts on it. Other members may have other thoughts.

Mr. John Duncan: We'd like to hear your thoughts, because it's certainly something I think I might promote in terms of recommendations from this committee.

Mr. Bruce Whipple (Director, Miramichi Watershed Management Committee Inc.): I might add that I don't think this would work, because salmon won't take a fly or won't take a lure in tidal waters. Atlantic salmon won't, unlike the B.C. salmon. So what are you going to license? People aren't going to buy licences if they can't catch fish.

Mr. Alex Mills: Yes, that's right. We shouldn't confuse the tidal fishery for Atlantic salmon with the tidal fishery for Pacific salmon. The fact still remains that the DFO managers I have talked to have said that a licence for the tidewater for Atlantic salmon would be a beneficial management tool. It really doesn't have to do with the fact that there isn't much of a fishery there and there's no commercial recreational fishery in tidewater, but DFO managers I have talked to say it would be beneficial.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Charles Hubbard): John, do you have another question?

Mr. John Duncan: No.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Charles Hubbard): As they said, here we have entirely fly fishing. The regulations are you can't use spinners or lures, so it would be a matter of regulation.

Mr. Easter has some questions, so I'll go now to him.

Mr. Wayne Easter: The hatchery decision certainly doesn't look like it's going to be rolled back. I certainly want to say that your member in this area fought this issue very hard.

But in terms of looking at the future, we have to deal with the here and now. Basically you're making a request, as John said, for a year and a half of operational funding. Then what after that? You can think about that.

The other issue was certainly raised with the other witnesses and you mentioned it in your presentation. Based on these hearings, I'm increasingly worried about the fact that we've had the downturn in the ground fishery and as a result of that we're trying to find other species to exploit and we are getting it both ways. There are some people saying we have to develop a capelin industry and putting pressure on that. There are others who are saying there are all kinds of shrimp out there. We have to allocate.

And even DFO scientists are saying there are all kinds of shrimp out there and we have to allocate new quotas for that shrimp and exploit the resource. I want your response on that, because I am worried about where we're going there. We may be talking about far greater problems than we think we are for five or ten years down the road if we keep exploiting the resource to the ultimate.

• 1300

Last, in terms of the health of the stock, we have problems not with the wild Atlantic salmon but certainly the salmon aquaculture. There was also a problem in one of the rivers around here with a disease. Manley, I think you mentioned it to me when I talked to you in the summertime. Do we have enough resources at DFO to protect the resources in terms of new diseases, viruses, or whatever that come along?

Mr. Alex Mills: First I'll talk about the shrimp and capelin to salmon issue. We don't know what the problem is with Atlantic salmon. Are the DFO scientists able to say that the problem with Atlantic salmon is in no way connected to shrimp populations? These are the kinds of questions and answers that have to be made. I don't know.

If a DFO scientist says it's an underutilized species, has he gone through the analysis as to what the role of shrimp to salmon is or capelin to salmon? Does the analysis include that? If it doesn't include that, then keep the brakes on it until we can say that for sure. I can't see how one cannot affect the other. They're in the food chain.

It's a question of having the definite answers. Certainly if the answers are definite, then one would have to say go for it. Obviously DFO science has been criticized recently and I know the open water, north Atlantic science relating to Atlantic salmon is sadly deficient. That's a fact. So until that is complete, our position would be don't touch any of their food bases.

Mr. Bruce Whipple: I just want to point out that I think he said there was no problem with the wild fish and Manley pointed out to you there was.

Mr. Wayne Easter: No, I said there is.

Mr. Bruce Whipple: In terms of stock there's certainly a problem. Even this year we're down 30% from last year and last year was marginal.

Mr. Alex Mills: Another thing—in fact it's an oversight in our brief—is that we certainly take the position that we don't want any Atlantic salmon aquaculture on this river. It's just becoming too scary with all the problems, and I'm not sure that we have a handle on that either.

There's some speculation.... One of the possible sources that's been identified as the cause or the introduction of furunculosis to the Miramichi has been escapees from salmon farms. Look at the Norway situation. That stuff is just as scary as all get out. Certainly for this committee we don't want any aquaculture of Atlantic salmon on this system. The threats are too great. They're not going to do it anyway, obviously; the water's too cold. If somebody figured out a way to do it....

The Chairman: The committee members want to thank the witnesses today. We'll certainly be addressing some of the concerns you raised in our report to Parliament. We want to thank you for coming here.

Committee members, we're going to return here for the Acadian Groundfish Fishermen's Association, the New Brunswick Salmon Council, the Regional Federation of Acadian Producers and Fishermen, and other people.

We'll return here after lunch, ladies and gentlemen, and our proceedings will continue at that time.

• 1304

• 1505

The Chairman: Order. We'll now reconvene. Before we call our witnesses from la Fédération régionale acadienne, we're going to hear a few words from the mayor, Cleo Sonier.

Mr. Sonier.

[Translation]

Mr. Cleo Sonier (Mayor of Neguac): Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests and friends, I am happy to welcome you to our community. As you know, the fishing industry is an important part of our economy. We value the relations we have with all industry stakeholders.

I hope that you will take advantage of your stay here to sample not only the best seafood in the world, but also to take in our broad ranging Acadian heritage and joie de vivre. I hope your stay with us is pleasant. Thank you.

[English]

The Honourable Danny Gay, the Minister of Fisheries, is going to a meeting in Halifax and couldn't be here this morning. He told me to wish you all the best this afternoon.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Well, we certainly tasted the best seafood we've ever tasted here today, and we want to thank you very much.

An hon. member: Here, now.

The Chairman: You hear some objections from P.E.I. and Newfoundland.

We'd like to call to the table Mr. Robert Haché and the rest of the group of witnesses from the Acadian Regional Federation of Fishermen and Producers.

Mr. Robert Haché (Acadian Regional Federation of Professional Fishermen): The name is Acadian Regional Federation of Professional Fishermen.

The Chairman: Okay. I wonder, Mr. Haché, if you could introduce the gentlemen you have with you and perhaps make an opening statement. I know a great deal of what you are going to point out has been pointed out already before the committee. I'll pass the floor over to you, Mr. Haché.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Haché: Thank you. I would like to start by giving the floor to the president of the Federation, Mr. Renald Guignard.

Mr. Renald Guignard (President, Acadian Regional Federation of Professional Fishermen): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of the Acadian Regional Federation of Professional Fishermen, I would like to welcome you, Mr. Chairman, George Baker, as well as Charles Hubbard, who is hosting us in his riding.

I will introduce the members of the Federation, which is made up of four fishers' associations: Mr. Daniel Gionet is the president of the Association des crevettiers du golfe; Mr. Gilles Noël is the president of the Association des membres d'équipage; Mr. Fernand Friolet, president of the Association des seineurs, is not here because the meeting was called on such short notice; I am Renald Guignard, president of the Association des crabiers acadiens and president of the Federation; and Mr. Robert Haché is our director general.

Robert Haché will tell you about our resource management system and the species caught by the mid-shore fishers who are members of the Acadian Regional Federation of Professional Fishermen.

Even if our resources and species have already been discussed at some length, I would like to explain how we manage the resources and species catches. We will in no way address the management of species that do not concern us.

Mr. Haché, I will ask you to make your presentation.

Mr. Robert Haché: Thank you, Renald. We have distributed our brief. I will say a few words about what it contains.

The first part of the brief is the presentation we will make today. Then there are four other parts, one on each of the associations that make up the federation. This information can help you, as members of Parliament involved in the fisheries, obtain precise factual data on these associations, and what they represent.

• 1510

We have included the names and addresses of the presidents as well as a description of the resources caught and landed. There is also a description of each group fishery and fishing zones. The brief also includes the description of the fleet and the workforce, as well as a brief overview of the organization and the list of the directors. Then, for each association, we have provided background information on the species and management approach used.

All of that is for your own information, for you and your teams. If, sometime someone talks about us and you want to contact us, I hope that will be helpful.

We are very pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you, particularly here in our own region. We know that you have already heard about the midshore fleet in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, particularly as concerns the snow crab and all the ideas that some people have about that fleet. Those ideas and the presumed wealth of the fleet have been thrown out indiscriminately in Parliament, particularly to explain and justify the imposition of access fees on fishers. The example of snow crab in zone 12 has been used to criticize individual quotas and privatization. Some people have talked about millionaire crab fishers in zone 12, but all of this becomes a bit ridiculous.

We are therefore very happy to have for once an opportunity to set the record straight, to clarify the situation and explain to you humbly the history of the non-competitive fleet in the Gulf which did not include only crab fishers; it is a very diverse and interesting fleet as I hope you will appreciate.

Sustainable fishing for coastal communities is a tradition of our association. Professional fishers in the Gulf of St. Lawrence have three main characteristics which distinguish and define them.

First, the existence of two types of fishing; competitive and non-competitive. Second, the existence of two types of fishers, owner-captains and crew members. As you know, our federation is a duly constituted association of crew members.

Third, the existence of a small number of organizations representing a large number of licence holders and small groups of fishers.

Who are these non-competitive fishers? Associations of fishers and those represented by our federation work in non-competitive fishing. Their work is characterized by the fact that they go out on the water for more than one day, sometimes for several days, and by the use of boats which can vary in length from 45 to 85 feet. Non-competitive fisheries are governed by management models based on the granting of individual quotas to each fishers.

Competitive fishers: in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, competitive fishers are involved primarily in in-shore fisheries and basically constitute those fishers who work near the coast. Characteristically they go on the water for 24 hours or less and use boats under 45 feet in length. Coastal fisheries are governed by management models based on the monitoring of fishing activities with or without overall quotas.

Crew members: until recently, crew members were represented within captains' associations or, in many cases, not at all. There are now at least five Canadian crew-member associations, one in New Brunswick which belongs to our Federation and four in Quebec.

• 1515

Fishers' organization: in the Gulf of St. Lawrence there are a few organizations with a very broad membership, which essentially represent the interests of the competitive coastal fishing sector, which contains a very large number of fishing licence holders.

However, the vast majority of organizations involved in non- competitive fishing have less than 200 members. This is due to the fact that over the years the fleet which they represent have chosen to rationalize their activities.

FRAPP [Acadian Regional Federation of Professional Fishers] has been in existence for 30 years. Although its name and organizational structure have changed over time, it still represents the same fishers and pursues the same goals. It serves non-competitive fishers who have managed over the years to develop and maintain fishing businesses which enjoy or have enjoyed some success. All these businesses belong to operating owner-masters who concern is to keep the fish catching sector in the hands of professional fishers who are attached to their coastal communities.

Over the years, FRAPP has always tried to stress the importance of including fishers and giving them responsibilities in the management of the resources they harvest. This concept of co- management and partnership is an extremely important objective for our Federation.

Lastly, FRAPP and its members have always supported the professionalization of fishers and a business-like approach to the industry. The view of the fishery sector as serving ultimately the purpose of job creation does not reflect in any way the position of FRAPP or its members.

Our objectives: I will address here the four objectives of FRAPP and explain that they are very specific and based on the experience of our members. As you will appreciate, they have evolved with time.

FRAPP has essentially four objectives: to promote the professionalism of fishers; to promote sustainable fisheries; to promote the concept of fishers as business people; and to promote co-management and partnership-based approaches.

Promoting the professionalization of fishers: As I mentioned at the beginning of my presentation, the fishery is not and should not be considered as a job of last resort.

However, and like most professional or trade bodies, at the moment there is no official system of accreditation for our profession, except perhaps in Newfoundland. FRAPP as a whole, and particularly the Association representing professional crew member fishers, has been working for a few years on developing certification procedures for professional fishers based on adequate standards of training and experience.

The approach taken is essentially the following: in any certification process introduced, people currently working as fishers would be automatically recognized through a grandfather clause. This is justified by the fact that they already have the skills, basic knowledge and experience needed to safely exercise that profession.

However, the criteria for newcomers to the industry will be different. In order to encourage future fishers to complete secondary education at least, it is proposed that anyone wishing to make their career in the fishery and be recognized as professional fishers must have graduated from secondary school, taken a certain number of training courses on fishing, and completed five years of midshore fishery work.

It is also essential to require from the beginning the registration or certification of both new arrivals and current active fishers.

• 1520

Promoting sustainable fisheries: Before the end of the 1980s, the midshore fishers whom we represent all worked in competitive fisheries as is the case with inshore fisheries today.

The general belief at the time was that the resources of the sea were inexhaustible. People should fish as often as possible so as to make immediate economic gains. In the minds of fishers and coastal communities, the best fisher was the person who managed to land the largest quantity of fish every time he went out.

However, the result of this system was that by the end of the 1980s, as our fishers have already witnessed—cod stocks did not collapse first in Newfoundland; first there was the collapse of smallest stocks, something which was just as painful for small communities as the major collapse which costs the federal government 2 billion dollars—there were major collapses in almost every key stock: cod and red fish in the 1960s, herring at the end of the 1970s and snow crab at the end of the 1980s. This series of collapses finally gave the lie to the general belief that fish stocks in the Gulf would remain abundant forever.

Having learned the hard way that fish stocks were exhaustible, our members took a new approach and sought to implement management methods promoting the rebuilding and sustainability of these resources. This view is based on the fact that the resource is exhaustible. That a balance has to be struck between the economic viability of businesses and the viability of the resource, and that the resource must be safeguarded for the fishers of tomorrow and their communities.

With this new philosophy, the best fisher is not the one who lands more and more fish but he who benefits the most from the limited amount of fish allocated to him.

Promoting the concept of a fisher as a business person: As the attitude of our fishers has changed towards the fragility of fish resources, so the view of fishers themselves has changed. They have moved from the concept of the competitive commercial fisher to that of the fisher as a business person. What were the characteristics of the competitive commercial fisher and what are the characteristics of the fisher as a business person?

The competitive commercial fisher: At the time of competitive fishing, every fisher had access to the same overall quota of fish and everyone wanted to catch the largest share of the overall quota. As a result, fishers constantly needed bigger and more high- performance boats, more efficient fishing gear and more sophisticated electronic equipment so as to better compete. Consequently, their debt load increased and any unexpected problem, such as mechanical or electronic failure, sickness or other difficulties, hurt their competitiveness.

In the end the work rate on boats often reached inhuman levels because there was always more and more competition to catch more fish. In fact, this competition did not take place between fishers themselves. It took place to the detriment of the resource. There was an inevitable race to get the resource. Every fisher increased his fishing effort, thus leading to overfishing and collapse of stocks.

The fisher as a business person: The move at the end of the 1980s towards non-competitive fishing changed all that. In the new context, each fisher receives a fixed percentage of the overall quota and that individual share is set aside for him or her. Fishers cannot land more than their share of fish and all individual overfishing is heavily penalized. Therefore, fishers have had to fundamentally change their approach so as to benefit more from their quota limits.

• 1525

This new approach opened up other possibilities: fishers can now better plan their fishing activities, humanize the work rate of their boats and spread the fishing season out over a long period, so as to avoid bottle necks in the plants and extend the length of employment on land and at sea. They are encouraged to better handle fish on the boat and at landing if they wish to get a better price for the limited quantity of fish.

They no longer need to overequip their boats so as to compete and can adapt boats to the set quota. It's easier for them to finance their investments since they can give lenders a business plan based on the certain guarantee of a set quota of fish.

Last but not least, the need to compete to the detriment of resource has been removed. Fishers are now more motivated to protect the stock because if it collapses, their share also collapses. And if the stock increases, their share increases.

Unlike the competitive commercial fisher, the non-competitive commercial fisher has an interest in assuming his share of responsibility for conserving stocks and managing his business, just like a business person concerned about long-term viability. This is what we mean by the fisher as a business person.

Promoting co-management and partnership approaches in the fishery: Fisheries and Oceans Canada takes two main approaches to stock management, one of which focuses primarily on competitive fishing and the other on non-competitive fishing.

The management approach for competitive fishing is based primarily on measures to monitor and control the fishing effort. They try to protect stocks by monitoring and controlling the activities of fishers. The management approach for non-competitive fishing, even if the effort is monitored and controlled, is based primarily on co-management and partnership agreements with fishers. They try to protect stocks by offering each fisher a certain security of access to the resource.

Using the stick, or the control-based approach, the DFO manages the fishing effort by essentially doing three things: imposing regulations, establishing control systems and imposing sanctions. Through regulations, the Minister limits the number of licenses, limits fishing seasons, limits the length of boats, limits the number and type of fishing gear, etc. You are familiar with all of that. They come out with piles of regulations; there are regulations everywhere.

The Minister establishes control and monitoring systems which are enforced essentially by Departmental protection officers present on the wharfs, at sea and in the air. Sanctions are imposed such as the seizure of boats and catches, fines, withdrawal of licences, etc.

Although all these measures are necessary for the management of competitive and non-competitive fisheries, they have been, are and will prove to be in the future sadly inadequate for avoiding overfishing in competitive stocks.

This approach is no match for the ingenuity of fishers, who are past masters at playing cat and mouse. The following two examples clearly indicate the weaknesses in this area, and there are many other such examples. People manage to circumvent the rules.

• 1530

In the mid-1980's, some fishers managed to get around legally the limitations placed by the Department on boat length by building much wider boats. These boats are known in English as "pregnant 44- footers".

The other example is taken from the inshore lobster fishery. Fishers managed to legally get around the effect of the limit placed on the number of traps by doubling their size. These traps are now known as double-parlour traps.

Lastly, the implementation of a fish management approach based essentially on controlling and monitoring the effort is very costly, very burdensome, and very demanding both for the government and society in general.

Giving people responsibility—or the carrot approach—as I said earlier, the DFO manages non-competitive fisheries essentially by offering individual fishers a certain security of access and personally entrusting them with responsibility for protecting the resource.

The allocation by the DFO of an overall quota to be shared by all fishers for a given period, normally between five and ten years, is generally based on two principles. The history of landings and equal share. The initial share can be based on the historical records of fish landings by each fisher. You go back over the past five years, calculate the average in each case and then divide the pie accordingly.

This formula was used for the allocation of individual shrimp quotas in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence. The Daniel Gionet group, which is presently here today, fishes shrimp with this system. The allocation can also be based on equal distribution of quota shares to each fisher. This method was used for seine boats in the Gulf. They took the quota and allocated an equal share to every one.

The initial distribution may also include a historical portion and an equal-share portion. This joint formula was used for the sharing of snow crab in zone 12; 80% of the overall quota was distributed equally among all crab fishers and the remaining 20% was distributed according to the landing history of each fisher.

Once the initial share is determined, fishers want to ensure that no one lands more than his quota share. So in every fishery fishers have established and funded systems for monitoring the landings of every fisher. This monitoring is done by independent firms which weigh the landings at the wharf.

Lastly, rules are established for managing the systems used. It is important to understand that. Essentially, such rules are put in place either to prevent certain fishers from establishing monopolies or to encourage rationalization within a fleet, where necessary.

These two objectives are achieved through the transferability or non-transferability of quotas between fishers. The system of individual quotas for crab fishers cannot allow for the temporary or permanent transferability of quotas from one crab fisher to another. In this case the lack of transferability is due to the fact that the Department considers that each fisher's share is adequate to ensure his long-term economic viability.

• 1535

In the case of our shrimp fishers, the roles are different. Shrimp fishers have the right to acquire parts or all of their quotas on a permanent basis or to divest themselves of them. In this case, the privilege of quota transferability is justified by the fact that when the system was implemented, it was necessary to rationalize part of the fleet. There were too many fishers and too few boats.

However, the volume of quotas which a shrimp fisher may purchase is limited to a maximum set at 714,000 pounds per shrimp fisher. This is done to prevent anyone from acquiring a monopoly.

However, while a shrimp fisher is allowed to sell part of his quota, he is obliged to sell all his quota if he traps below a minimum level. The minimum level for a shrimp fisher to remain in the fishery is set at 350,000 pounds. Someone who had 500,000 pounds might decide to sell 100,000 for economic reasons. The following year, he might decide to sell 50,000 pounds. If he does so, he cannot be considered a serious fisher. The individual quota has not been established for the purposes of bargaining. At 350,000 pounds, if he wants to sell more he will have to sell all his quota to an active fisher. Otherwise, he will have to leave the fishery.

With that system, we have in New Brunswick—I don't know the figures for Quebec—managed to remove two shrimp fishers from the fleet without costing anything to the government, without hurting anyone, and without the shrimp fisher who sold his quota ending up in poverty. I think the figure was five in Quebec, but I'm not sure. Mr. Bernier would probably know and could tell us.

These flexible approaches to co-management and empowerment of fishers, combined with certain measures to control the fishing effort—unlike Mr. Bernier, I don't want to get rid of everything since we need the green smurfs, the fishing officers, even in those systems—, have been used in our fisheries for less than ten years. Our fishers have been leaving competitive fishing for less than ten years.

So it must be recognized that this is a very important fundamental change. It took less than ten years. Positive results were not long in coming for fishers who had the courage to use these approaches, or for the stocks that they are catching. As a result, crab stocks in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence were saved from certain collapse in the early 1990s.

This morning some members referred to crab fishers who were millionaires. As you know, in 1989, crab fishers forced the Minister to close the fishery because they saw the stock was in danger. They'd tied their boats to the wharf. They said: That's it, we have to stop there. The Department took 24 hours to decide to close down the fishery. The reason why the Department didn't want to close the fishery is, gentlemen, that ten weeks' work were needed to guarantee UI benefits for plant workers. That is why the Department was hesitant about closing the fishery.

But those crab fishers made it possible to save crab stocks, and look at what is happening now. Those crab fishers who did not fish in 1989 and began to fish in 1990, made a quota of 7,000 tons, with a price of under $1 a pound, and having made barely $100,000 gross one year and $150,000 the next, suddenly found themselves receiving an astronomically high price for crab in 1995-1996, simply because of our exchange rate changes between the Canadian dollar and the Japanese yen. As a result, some companies had a gross turnover of $1 million in one year. It is since then that everyone has been talking about millionaire crab fishers.

• 1540

We must at least have the honesty and decency to look at the situation as it really is. The fact is that the crab resource has been saved and now is in good health, so much the better! Well done! That system has also made it possible to efficiently manage the growth of shrimp stocks in the Gulf. As you also know, shrimp stocks are now in excellent health. Such examples should be followed in the management of other stocks in the Gulf which are threatened with overfishing.

In conclusion, FRAPP would like to express its support for two observations made in the Annual Report of the Auditor General of Canada:

14.6. The deep cultural attachment to the groundfish fishery has been reinforced by several decades of government subsidies. This has resulted in substantial pressure on government to maintain the status quo; that is, to use the fish as a basis for providing income support. Successive governments have provided increasing income support for the people living in the remote coastal communities in Atlantic Canada. This reaction to social pressures has not resulted in an economically viable fishery. In fact, the absence of the fishery has revealed, more clearly than ever before, the substantial reliance on income support by a significant portion of the Atlantic fishing industry. This reliance makes dealing with already complex problems of overcapacity and fisheries management more difficult.

14.7 With the future of groundfish uncertain, the problems remain critical. In our view, the Department, in conjunction with the government, needs to take further steps to implement the principle that "conservation is the paramount priority",...

Among these other steps, individual quotas are a very valid option, gentlemen. They are used, and it is known that they work.

...as well as to continue to pursue efforts to ensure that resource management decisions reflect the principle that "harvesting capacity must match the available resource base". At the same time, the government must deal with difficult socio-economic decisions...

It's not the fishers, the fishery or the resource which can do that.

...about the future of those whom the fishery cannot support, if fisheries management is to ensure an ecologically and economically sustainable fishery.

We must not delude ourselves but recognize, gentlemen, that there is not enough fish to create jobs for everyone. The federal government must make that distinction very, very clearly.

We don't want to take anything away from anyone, but the argument that the resource is there for everyone and that everyone can benefit from it is a dangerous one. It is dangerous because examples show that when every one is allowed to participate on a competitive basis, the most important part of our future development ends up by being lost, that is the resource itself.

However, that does not relieve the federal government of its responsibility to create jobs and look after those people who can no longer make a living from fishing.

• 1545

I hope that we are clear. What we can say to you, gentlemen, is not to throw out the baby with the bath water. The fishers I represent know that individual quotas for fishers work.

When you talk about privatization, it must be clearly understood that privatisation or quasi-ownership rights in the fisheries have not been in existence only since the introduction of individual quotas. When a licence holder sells his licence and makes money, this is an aspect of privatization.

In our view, there are no other ways of dealing with the resource than to give more and more responsibility to fishers by providing them with security of access. The bottom line is that what we are asking you to promote is a new Fisheries Act, with a concept of partnership, entrusting things to groups of fishers not for generations but for five or ten years. They should be told: look, for the next ten years you have it; make good use of it. Build up good businesses and take care of the resource. That's what has to be done.

Thank you, gentlemen.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Haché. You did an excellent job, a very good job.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Haché: We try, because this industry is very important to us, and it is worth supporting.

[English]

The Chairman: Do any of the other witnesses have anything to add to what Robert said, before we go to questions? Okay.

The Reform Party spokesperson, MP John Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: First of all, I didn't catch all of your presentation. When you have constituents who are not receiving their unemployment insurance cheques because of the postal strike, they don't accept the fact that your sitting in a meeting is a good enough reason not to phone. So I apologize.

On the IQ system, which you have spent most of your presentation talking about, we have heard a lot of concern, in many of our discussions, about the community benefiting from the adjacent fishery. Some people suggest that the IQ system is completely incompatible with a benefit to the community, yet I think you would probably say the opposite.

In your opinion, does the community holding an IQ make a lot of sense? Is that a good practice?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Haché: A community with an individual quota? I hadn't thought of that. I know that it works well for individual fishers.

• 1550

No fishers were eliminated. When we had individual quotas for those fleets, we did not eliminate any fishers. They all live in communities. They're still there and they fish as they did before.

Now, I think the principle of non-competitive fisheries and individual quotas is good, and it may well be a very attractive solution for some fisheries in some communities.

However, we have to be careful here. If people think that a community quota will make it possible to build a fish plant in each little Atlantic community, I think they are mistaken. I don't know whether you understand what I mean.

I see no problem as such, but I have not thought about that and I have never seen it. There may be some fisheries that would lend themselves to this approach. We could divide one quota among a group of fishers or a community. We have to avoid setting systems in which the fishery is based on the first come, first serve principle, on might makes right, on a competitive approach.

Today, because of technological developments and capacities, the impact has been very harmful on all stocks. It is good to have a system that limits things.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Haché, I think the reason Mr. Duncan asked the question was that a recent group of shrimp quota given up north in Newfoundland.... We had hearings in the community. The community is given the quota, then the community goes out to try to get fishermen and the community then contracts with a private company for the production of shrimp.

You're absolutely correct. What you're suggesting is professionalization, and professionalization in the context of the community quota. The community quota doesn't operate as easily as people think it does. This is the way they put it to you. When you have to go to the bank looking for money for your boat or for your processing equipment, they want guarantees that you have some longevity.

We want to go next to Mr. Bernier of the Bloc Québécois. Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Haché may want to respond for us.

Mr. Robert Haché: I would like to add something about community quotas. It is a new concept that has just appeared; it is quite recent. Our principle is that you should keep the issue of the catch in the hands of professional fishers.

A community is made up of individuals. The individuals best able to look after a quota, both to destroy it or to make it flourish, are the guys who go out on the water. They are the people with whom we must deal.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: I would like to make a clarification.

The Chairman: You may have a very short clarification, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: I just want to explain that the chairman is always putting words in my mouth when he clarifies things. It's because he's from Newfoundland and I'm from British Columbia.

I didn't get this idea so much from the shrimp quota, the community quota, as I did from British Columbia, but they do reinforce each other.

Thank you.

The Chairman: We'll go to Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Good morning to our representatives from the Acadian Peninsula.

• 1555

I have reviewed your document. The Standing Committee is here to hear about all the problems involving the fishery, management issues and TAGS. I thought we might hear a little more from people about TAGS. In your text, you deal with the issue of management as such, as the group that appeared before us this morning. As I said this morning, since I did have a life before I became a politician, I realize that there may be different points of view. I'm the type of guy who thinks that all agreements reached should be respected. I apologize again if I got a little carried away this morning.

On the issue of the philosophy of management, I find it interesting that you took the time to mention a quotation from the Auditor General on page 10. It referred to the fact that the government should make difficult social economic decisions about the future of those the fishery can no longer support.

That suggests some painful decisions. That suggests that the government, as a prudent administrator, if we can use that expression, sometimes has to make some difficult decisions. Sometimes in life, it may seem that some individuals may have received more favourable treatment than others, for some reason or other. Sometimes it is up to the administrator to ask what he can do.

I don't want us to be the bad guys, but I think that everyone realizes that there is a problem in the Golf at the moment. I'm referring mainly to the Golf of Saint Lawrence. You say that you realize as well that there are too many people involved.

I know there has already been one rationalization of the individual quotas. I asked this morning's group whether we could work with them to see whether there could be a rationalization or something else done in their case. That's one point.

I believe I've already chatted with you, and I would like to know what you think about the principle of multi-species catches. A fisher could have access to several licenses, or, theoretically, be able to fish in various locations. However, I don't know how we would do this exactly.

The first group we heard from this morning, even though it still does not agree with the individual quota system, does not call the whole system into question. They began by saying that they would like to have part of it. It is true that some people do not have access to it. The idea, here is again, is to introduce multi- species catches.

You may not necessarily have an answer today, but I would like to know whether your group would agree to think about this. I ask you that out of respect for who you are, in terms of the individual quota system. When the other group is ready to discuss this, could the government, in its role as administrator, get an opinion from you? We could either purchase or take over part of the quota, but do you think this is something that could be considered with a view to achieving multi-species catches?

This talk about multi-species catches and the principle of prudent administrator may mean purchasing the quotas or trading other licenses. I don't know, but I do know that in a negotiation, the hardest part is defining the problem. I think that everyone knows what the problem is. There may be just too many fishers.

The responsibility of the administrator is to find a way for the two groups to live together in harmony. I know that is a difficult stage. You may not have the answer today, and I am not requiring it. For me, however, this would be the first step, that is, to think about whether this could be considered in a way that shows respect for the two groups. I do not intend to make a decision between the opinions of inshore and midshore fishers, each of whom work differently.

I will complete my remarks by saying that this idea could be reconciled with what Mr. Duncan was saying about community quotas. In Quebec, we used to have a co-operative of united fishermen. All the fishers' resources were pooled for processing purposes. All their landings together made up the quota of Quebec fishers at that time.

It may be possible to reconcile certain principles. Some groups may use one management method or another, but I would like to hear from you whether we might consider how to achieve this harmonious solution at some point.

• 1600

I don't have the answer, but I'm trying to determine whether there could be a dialogue between the two groups and whether the administrator could bring the various elements together.

Mr. Robert Haché: First of all, as you know, we did not complain, and we did not ask for any quotas. The idea is very interesting, Mr. Bernier, but before sitting down to talk about this, we must ensure that we have solved the overcapacity problem in the other sectors. As long as overcapacity continues to exist on other sectors, we cannot begin any negotiations.

There's a preliminary step that must be taken. Some groups continue to think, whether rightly or wrongly—wrongly, in my view- -that they don't need to rationalize. For example, in the coastal herring sector, I think there are 3,000 licenses in the southern part of the Gulf. If I am mistaken, I apologize, but I think there are a great many licenses. Some people say that there's no need for rationalization. Our stocks are declining, but that's not serious, because we will go and fish crab and shrimp. So the first thing is that everyone must do his share.

I'm going to ask Renald to help me answer your question. But we are open. We can say that in the main we are open to the idea of participating, but the other players must be open as well. If everyone wants to get something for nothing...

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Haché, I'm going to come back to the father figure or administrator role that I'm using as an example today. Sometimes the father says: "I asked you the question, and I am going to settle this other matter with your brother". We don't ask what the other groups will have to do. I do not want to call all of that into question. I gather from your answer that your group might be inclined to talk about things. You would like Mr. Renald Guignard to add something. I would not want to accuse someone who was not present.

Mr. Robert Haché: I did not intend to accuse anyone. I was trying to answer you as clearly as possible.

Mr. Renald Guignard: I am going to have to be careful not to accuse anyone either. Let me use your comparison. If the father tells his son to do something, and the son said he needs something for his cousin and his neighbour, we will never reach an agreement.

You ask whether we can find any other long-term solutions that might be beneficial to more fishers or that might foster cooperation between resources or between species. That was done last spring in the case of the crab fishery. We signed an agreement with Fisheries and Oceans that included a break even point for the crab fleet. It shares any surplus with the traditional fishers and even fish plant workers and others in the industry. That was the broadest spectrum we could affect.

Some say that the 130 crab fishers in the gulf keep everything for themselves and don't care about the others. Under the agreement signed in April 1996, there is enough crab for everyone.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I would just like to add one comment, and I will be brief, Mr. Chairman. I know that you have an agreement, and I will not be the one to tear up anything at all.

• 1605

However, as an administrator, I emphasize that one of the parties says that it would like to see how the arrangement could be permanent. Under your agreement, each of the crab fishers is encouraged to cooperate individually in this agreement with the annual profits.

Let's say that each of these profits represent a certain percentage. Let's say the figure is 5%, and then the government is allowed to speak to each of your fishers individually. Let us assume that some of your fishers, once they reach a certain age, might be interested in selling their quotas. Would you be opposed to having the government buy them and distribute them to whomever at that time? However, this would have no impact on your actions or your personal companies.

A Witness:

[Editor's note: Inaudible]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: If you don't have an answer, you could at least think about the question. I know that we are in a deadlock.

Mr. Renald Guignard: I have no trouble answering that, because I think we have an agreement that satisfies all the fishers. I have no objection to the government buying a license and giving it to someone else. I would be less pleased if you wanted to buy my licence and distribute it among the remaining 129. The agreement states that for these 130 licence holders and companies, the break even point must be reached and the resource must be protected. If the government wants to buy back 5, 10 or 15 licenses, it does not have to do so to improve the position of the other companies. It is just that it wants to transfer the licenses from one to another. It wants to take the gift it gave the oldest in the family and give it to the youngest.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you. Thank you, father Bernier.

We'll go now to MP Wayne Easter from Prince Edward Island.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I don't know whether you were here this morning when the Maritime Fishermen's Union presented, but we have seen two very different presentations. I guess I wonder, can the two philosophies or the two systems co-exist?

In terms of my background, I come out of the supply management industry in the agriculture sector, and I'll tell you, I've had a lot of ups and downs with quota, and I support, in terms at least of the agriculture system, a quota system.

You mentioned one of the problems—and we haven't found the answer in the agriculture side—of how you do not prevent concentration in the industry, with fewer and fewer and fewer players. You said in your brief, if my French is correct, that you have a limit of 714,000 pounds, I believe, on shrimp.

What happens over time is the industry consolidates. We had a limit one time in agriculture as well, and over time the industry starts to consolidate. You are making your own rules, and the industry starts to rationalize. You ratchet up that limit to the point it's gone, and then you have an industry in which the value of the quotas takes on a price that has no relationship with the end price of the product at all. It's just concentration in the industry, and it becomes capital that only those that are in can expand, or those that are very wealthy can get into. That's just a concern I have with the system, based on my own experience.

When we were in Newfoundland and Labrador, they were arguing in terms of the shrimp quotas—that adjacency and historic attachment should be the rule.

I guess my question is this. Can the two systems co-exist, and how do we move to a system that allows us to maximize returns for the greatest number of people, businesses, and communities?

Second, at the moment you have quotas that are basically based on biomass, I think—based on the amount of product that you assume is available. But there is another factor there, and that is, how does that weigh against market demand? Are there years we shouldn't be taking as much? You get into a game of taking more product and selling it for less money and then being worse off in the end. Is there a way of coming to a system where you try to match the two: what you can reasonably take in terms of the biomass product, but also what the market can handle in a way that will maximize your return?

• 1610

The Chairman: Mr. Haché.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Haché: I will try to answer your question on the individual quota system, Mr. Easter. I would like to say and repeat that the main reason our fishers chose individual quotas was that they wanted to protect the resource. They really wanted to protect the resource, because the competitive system in itself is badly flawed.

As regards the concentration of quotas, under the Canadian Constitution, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is the minister with the most power after the Minister of National Defense. I cannot believe that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans cannot intervene at some point to avoid this consolidation. That is the government's responsibility. It must do that for us.

From our point of view, we do not see monopolies as something advantageous for coastal communities. We agree on that, don't we? We think that competitive fisheries of the type we have today spell the end of coast communities, because they will mean the end of all the resources.

The best system we see at the moment is the individual quota system. This ensures, and the federal government can do this, that individuals, professional fishers, the real fishers, cannot acquire more than a certain number. It would be worth trying. I don't know whether I've answered your question.

You say that we have the biomass and the fishery without necessarily taking the markets into account. In the context of competitive fishery, that is truly the case. In the competitive fishery, where the first fisher to arrive is the one with the best chance to catch his quota, obviously the quota is always taken. In an individual fishery, the quantity of fish caught can be adjusted over a certain period in order to get a better price. I'm not sure you understand what I mean.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Charles Hubbard): Thank you, Mr. Haché.

Is it a small one?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes, very.

This morning as well, the Maritime Fishermen's Union talked about the crab allocations, I believe. They were allocated a share of that crab, which they then used through their organization on a draw basis to allocate a small amount out per boat. How did that program work, from your perspective, and does it have possibilities in other species?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Haché: The first problem we see is that quotas were given to fishers who did not have to go out and fish for them. They were sold to a fisher. Some fishers got quotas and did not go out and fish. They had others fish for them. To some extent, I don't think it's the fault of the fishers in question. That is just how the system was.

• 1615

I will let my president respond to the second point.

Mr. Renald Guignard: If I understood the question that Robert just translated and repeated for me, you want my opinion about sharing little quotas that were given to fishers in communities. If we say that in other areas, in other species, because of a lack of control or a shortage of the resource, we cannot have a viable fishery and we need other resources, that is no way to go about achieving viability.

Who tells the minister or the officials... it's a draw, a lottery. That is no way to make viable an industry that is threatened or that is short on resources. That is a bad system. Why does it work this way? Why do we fish a resource when the fishers quarrelled among themselves before adopting strict guidelines to protect the resource, in order to have a sustainable fishery in the long term?

You just took part of that and you are drawing lots to see who will have it. It's like buying a 6/49 ticket. It is rather ridiculous.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for appearing before the committee. We went on about an hour and twenty minutes.

At the beginning, Mr. Haché, I made a little joke, which you didn't catch. I said I thought a lot of what you were going to say had already been said.

Mr. Robert Haché: I caught the joke. I decided not to take it further.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Thank you very much. We really appreciate this. The brief you presented will be gone over with a fine-tooth comb before our recommendations are made. We thank you.

Before we call our next witnesses before the committee, we're going to have a statement from the fish plant we visited a few moments ago. We have Mr. Eric Smith here.

We sampled some very excellent seafood a few moments ago, so we all had a second lunch today, because the seafood was so good. We saw so many people working in the plant; it was wonderful to see hundreds of people working in this particular fish plant. So we've asked Mr. Smith to make a presentation to the committee.

Mr. Smith.

Mr. Eric Smith (Blue Cove Group): My presentation is on human resource issues in the fish processing industry.

Blue Cove Group (1993) Inc. is one of the largest employers in the New Brunswick seafood industry, with 1,000 seasonal and full-time employees. The industry is plagued with a variety of government-sponsored social welfare and make-work programs that prevent people from working and cause manpower shortages in peak processing periods.

• 1620

Blue Cove Group has undertaken a number of cooperative projects with federal and provincial human resource departments to resolve these problems and create meaningful seasonal and full-time jobs for Canada.

In 1996 a job development project at Neguac Seafoods, a division of Blue Cove Group, created 75 positions for disadvantaged persons unable to find or keep work. In a six-month study, a net savings of $186,942 was realized in social assistance. Please review the enclosed study.

I would like you to now turn to page 3, which is basically a summary of this report. In this particular project we focused on people who were unable to, on a yearly basis, find enough work weeks to collect unemployment insurance, or who were consistently on welfare. I'm not going to read this report to you.

On page 4 you'll see the total cost of expenditures was $238,550. The cost of this program was $51,563. The net saving, as I mentioned, was $186,000. This was just in five months. This study only consisted of a five-month period. These people are still working, so basically what I'm saying is in five months you save $185,000, essentially the people are off the welfare roll and off various assistance and make-work projects, and they are consistently working for us now, every year.

The next 20 pages just give you the statistics, the age groups, etc.—a detailed study of this, which you could certainly go over on your next bus trip or whatever. This is one example, and this is a study that is completed.

I would like to go over the next one. Maisonnette Seafoods, a division of Blue Cove Group, is undertaking a $1.1 million expansion to bottle marinated herring. Fifty new full-time jobs will be created, with over $12 million of additional revenue for the company.

Approximately 100 spin-off jobs include the following manufacturing:

—Consumers Glass in Moncton, New Brunswick, sells 4.5 million of the glass jars we put the herring in.

—Domtar Packaging in Moncton, New Brunswick, sells 400,000 cartons.

—Wine Bottle & Packaging in Toronto sells 4.5 million metal caps; that is, the covers for the jars.

—Stanchem in Halifax sells 200,000 pounds of acetic acid, used for curing purposes.

—St-Lawrence Starch in Toronto sells three million pounds of corn syrup. That relates to a tractor-trailer load of corn syrup—5,200 gallons a week.

—McCormick Canada in Toronto sells 400,000 pounds of pickling spice.

—Country Taste in P.E.I. sells 530,000 pounds of processed onions. This is a new company that opened up, and we're their only customer. They have 40 acres of onions, and we'll buy and process that entire production.

—McCain Refrigerated Food in Oakville, Ontario, sells one million pounds of sour cream. That's a tractor-trailer load every two weeks.

—Lantic Sugar in Saint John sells 100,000 pounds of white sugar.

• 1625

These suggest the larger items. There are a lot of smaller items that we're buying as well. It doesn't represent any of the trucking, handling, or distribution costs, or jobs that will be created there as well. These are 100 spin-off manufacturing jobs.

This project is being completed without out any additional herring being harvested. We simply export the finished product in jars instead of putting the semi-finished product in barrels. In the last 40 years, we've been shipping this product to the United States in 35-gallon drums. They mixed the onions and other products and put it in jars there. Now we're packing for companies in the United States.

Provincial assistance has been approved for this project. We're still waiting for approval from the federal Department of Human Resources Development. That's the second project.

This summer the Neguac area had 13,000 people on unemployment, 600 families on welfare, and several hundred people on government-initiated make-work projects, with an unemployment rate of 16%. Neguac Seafoods required 60 additional personnel, but could only hire two in this area. Those statistics were given to me by the government.

We are presently undertaking a cooperative project with Human Resources Canada personnel to create 89 new seasonal jobs in this area, targeting specific unemployed groups. Neguac Seafoods' production increased by 78% in 1996 and 52% in 1997, with a great majority of employees obtaining 800 to 1,200 hours of employment, equal to 24 to 30 work weeks in 1997. The 89 new employees will be working on adding value to existing production, which will make the plant more competitive on the world market.

Presently, 70% of all seafood harvested for this plant is imported into Canada. We expect additional production and new job creation in the future as we become more competitive. Please review the enclosed information on this project.

At this point in time, please flip to the back pages. It's the eighth page from the back. Basically it's a project titled Neguac Seafood Employment Project, 89 new positions 1997-98. This just basically details where the jobs are being created and gives a little bit about the project. The next page talks about the capital expenditures we'll make in order to create those jobs. The next page is just indicating increased production. We show the employment levels in the plant. Then, in the last few pages, there's some communication we've had with various groups in Human Resources Development to coordinate these 89 new positions.

So that describes three projects.

In conclusion—flip back to the second page from the beginning, where I left off—the provincial government consistently spends $9 million yearly in this area to remove people from provincial welfare programs to federal unemployment assistance. Recently an additional $2 million has been spent annually to boost the unemployment stamps of snow queen crab plant workers.

• 1635

Meaningful jobs can be created in the seafood processing industry, as emphasized by Blue Cove Group. These jobs train people in work ethics, food hygiene, quality management processing, social working skills, total quality control, hazard analysis, critical control points, sanitation, bacteria control, motion studies, production line skills, job satisfaction and pride.

We strongly recommend that government redirect their employment effort to industry and human resource joint venture projects, as illustrated, to end this cycle of social dependency. The Blue Cove Group has increased its revenue from $3.5 million in 1991 to $45 million in 1997, with a corresponding employment increase. It is committed to this concept in future employment expansion.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Smith. We certainly enjoyed our visit to your plant. We certainly enjoyed the delicious food that we sampled, and this is an incredible account that you've given us here today. We'll read all of it prior to the presentation of our report. Also, thank you for the wonderful magazine you gave to us.

Yes, Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): I just have one question for you, Mr. Smith.

We toured through the Atlantic provinces. There are many what I will call one-industry communities that rely solely on the fishing sector. They have fishing plants for various species that are empty, that aren't working and that haven't worked for a considerable length of time.

I understand that this plant was also closed for a considerable length of time before you reopened it. Was there any negative feedback from the community, or was it all very positive when you came in and reopened it? You are processing species so you have to import them to keep the plant open.

Mr. Eric Smith: Just to give you a bit of background information, the plant was bought, I believe, in 1992. We used it during the first few years as a warehouse. It was in receivership when we bought it. It had gone through a number of ownerships.

In fact when we did open the plant we had our announcement in this building. It was very well received by the community and by the town's administrators.

Actually, I had spent a lot of time myself on the actual construction and reopening of this plant. I do engineering development. I find that this particular plant has one of the best work ethics of the plants I'm involved with, and I have plants all over the place.

• 1640

Mr. Gary Lunn: The reason I ask is that we are searching for alternatives to the whole industry. We're trying to show that the industry is sustainable and has a future, but we're also looking for alternatives. You're obviously an expert in this area. Do you think there are other opportunities in other provinces, such as Newfoundland? Is there a market there than can still be developed?

Mr. Eric Smith: Yes. I'll just give an example. We do not have enough plants right now to process all the products we have access to—or the floor space. We have a lot of technologies that we're the only ones in Canada licensed for processing. I think there are huge opportunities in Newfoundland. My wife is from the Saint-Augustin River area in northern Quebec, so I've worked up north for many years. I think there are fantastic opportunities all over the land of Canada in the fishing industry.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you for your comment.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Smith. We certainly appreciated your presentation. We'll read your detailed brief. And we thank you for your hospitality to members of the committee.

Mr. Eric Smith: Thank you.

The Chairman: We now have seven more witnesses left. I wonder if we could have the witnesses take seats here. We have Alyre Gauvin, Jean Gauvin, Wesley Myles, Inka Milewski, Alvin Scott, Emilien Lebreton, and Clément Savoie.

I wonder if we could have our presenters one at a time, because I know members of the committee are going to want to ask some questions. I wonder if first of all we could hear a presentation from Mr. Alyre Gauvin and then we'll have members ask him some specific questions. Then we'll go around and take the presentations one at a time. We want Mr. Gauvin first.

[Translation]

Mr. Alyre Gauvin (President, Association des pêcheurs de poisson de fond acadiens): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for hearing from us here in your riding, Mr. Hubbard. I would like to thank all committee members.

• 1645

I have a little document here. It is not a brief that I will be presenting. It is rather an introduction, and that is why I did not distribute it.

I'm here today because of an article in the newspaper about two weeks ago. It said that the Fisheries Committee was questioning information from DFO. That is why I decided to come here to tell you what I think about this. As far as possible, I would like to limit my remarks to that. However, after hearing from two associations of fishers, I see that not only do the DFO officials seem to inform you badly, but that many others seem to do so as well. If you have any questions on this, I would be pleased to go into details later.

I would like you to know that I am very disappointed about the attitude shown by the two organizations that appeared before me. At some point, I will have to speak out against them.

First of all, I would like to congratulate you on your decision to come here and see the situation for yourselves. Many of your colleagues preferred to wait for messages in Ottawa, and we feel very strongly that the messages do not get to the people for whom they are intended.

Before continuing, I should introduce myself. My name is Alyre Gauvin, and I'm the president of the Association des pêcheurs de poisson de fond acadiens.

The fishers I represent are the most affected by the groundfish crisis in the Atlantic region, more specifically in New Brunswick. We are the only group of fishers in New Brunswick without a groundfish license. We specialize mainly in cod. We were 100% dependent on groundfish, more specifically cod.

To talk about the reason for your visit, I will take the liberty of speaking in insinuations. Since departmental officials and the Department itself and, much too often, other organizations of fishers blame us, the poor relatives of the region, we are inclined to be increasingly careful about what we say.

I would like you to know as well that I'm the fisher who last August asked the prime minister for a public inquiry into the events that led to the crisis in the fishery we are experiencing at the moment. The letter I sent to Mr. Chrétien is only one of many sent to various ministers of Fisheries and Oceans—Mr. Anderson, Mr. Mifflin, Mr. Tobin, or any of their predecessors.

This last letter to the prime minister seems to have prompted some increasingly unbearable retaliatory measures towards me and people I represent. I will not go into all the details, but I would like to tell you that I am taking legal action at the moment against DFO, specifically against the official Mr. Bernier mentioned this morning, because of another breach of contract with the fishers. That is at a personal level, of course. It is much more personal, because I am the person who was attacked.

I'm going to demonstrate that these officials made decisions that were too arbitrary. In my view, the only purpose of these decisions was to harm me and to damage my credibility as a representative of the fishers. If I made some mistakes, I am prepared to pay the consequences, but I have a great deal of trouble accepting that my group should pay the consequences.

An unfavourable decision was made about sharing temporary allowances for crab, shrimp and so on. I could go into this more later on. There was an unfavourable decision made about managing groundfish stocks, and about the catch plan, that was supposed to promote conservation of the resource.

• 1650

These are just a few of the examples of what we have to live with every day. Of course, as I was saying, I could talk further on many of these points, but I will not go into all of them. I would have had to bring in the little library I have in my office, which is no bigger than this table.

You will tell me that the decisions come from the minister, and I agree. However, in making this decision, the minister must get advice from someone. This someone is none other than the perfect, irreproachable senior officials.

I would also like to draw to your attention, the case of the number of individuals who play a very important role at the political level and who deserve closer observation.

I'm referring to your political assistants who, too often in my view, have a very different agenda from that of a government responsible for its actions. I'm thinking for example of Max Short, who was hired by DFO as an advisor to the last three ministers, Tobin, Mifflin and Anderson. Given his former ties to inshore groups, we feel quite strongly that Mr. Short has not shown impartiality in his advice to the minister. I will have a very good example for you at the end of my presentation, if you would like more details on this. He deserves to be mentioned. Everything leads us to believe that a number of decisions are made directly by Mr. Short on behalf of the minister, without the minister being involved at all. So I would ask you to please look over your shoulder once in a while to see what your officials and political assistants are doing.

In closing, I do not claim that I can take communion without confession, but I would like you to know that I am the only fisher in the region who has already confessed his guilt, and I am prepared to do so again. I am still prepared to let my sins be known. Unfortunately, for years now I have been trying to convince the others to do the same thing, and it's not working. We saw that this morning.

Moreover, we are a small group, there are about 20 of us cod fishers in New Brunswick today. We numbered about 32 at the time the groundfish plant was closed in 1993. There are only about 20 of us left. Only three took part in the licence buy back program. Where do you think the others are? Bankrupt.

The UPM came here this morning and spoke about its 1200 members. They never told you during their remarks that they had set up a company called Opilio with the funds that they got from that crab. Hundreds of fishers took part in that. Have a look where the money from that crab really went. It would take a long afternoon to try and unravel all of that. You don't seem to know much about that, and that bothers us. I would like to come back to that point. It is very important.

Consider FRAPP, which made its presentation a little while ago. FRAPP is derived from an organization that has been around for about 30 years and that has had three or four names. I was in FRAPP for 15 years. At the time, it was called the APPA. I spent 15 years on the executive of the organization, including the last five as president.

Earlier, Robert was saying that the members had not changed. Unfortunately, myself and another representative of a local organization are no longer part of this body for various reasons. In my case, it is because I was booted out after 15 years of voluntary service, on the pretext that I had shown a serious lack of solidarity toward my fisher colleagues. If you have any questions, I could answer them at length. I can handle my own defence on this. People took the liberty of accusing me, and I am capable of defending myself.

• 1655

I would ask you to notice that I am not wearing a tie. I am a fisher and I represent an organization of fishers as a volunteer. As I said, we are now located in a tiny office with a part-time secretary. We cannot afford anything else.

When I first became a member of the FRAPP management team, when the association was known as the APPA, our sales figures were less than $100,000. When I left, we were doing $1.5 million in business. I was booted out for not standing together with my fishermen colleagues.

These last two comments about the MFU and the FRAPP were intended to show you that unfortunately, government officials aren't the only ones who need to change their way of doing things. The whole industry needs to change as well.

Perhaps I should address my comments to Mr. Bernier. I don't want to engage in politics, but there is one thing that often disturbs me. I tune in to CPAC as often as I can to watch the proceedings in the House of Commons. Fish, however, do not. They could care less about constitutional problems. That's merely a personal comment.

There are other issues that I would like to discuss, in particular the drive to privatization which was mentioned earlier. I was one of the first people who dared talk about this at the start of the 1990s. That was even before the closure of the Atlantic groundfishery. Industry workers were saying that it was about time that they took charge of their own destiny and adopted codes of conduct. I stuck my neck out. I have to tell you that too often, I was blind sided. However, I managed to get through this and I could tell you more about it later, now that everyone seems favourable to the idea.

In January, virtually all fishermen's associations are meeting in Toronto to finalize arrangements.

At one point, Mr. Bernier and the others said they wanted to talk about TAGS. If you wish to talk about it, fine, then we will talk about it. But you should know that we always felt that the TAGS program merely put off the problem until later. It's now later and the problem is still there. We can talk about that more later on as well.

Another problem is the licence buy-back policy. Again, because they didn't listen to us, the program didn't work. The money allocated to this program was wasted and the program failed. The fact is that the proposals were considered unacceptable initially, whereas today, they appear to be gaining favour. What's going on?

There is something else that I would like to discuss. There has been talk about the gradual decentralization of the Moncton office to Halifax and this has many people worried. Whether or not this happens won't change very much. When we see the attitude of all the government officials who work there, we realize that not much is going to change. We can move the office to the regions or to Africa for that matter, but if the attitude of the people who work there doesn't change, then it will all have been for nothing. We will only be postponing the problem until later.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gauvin. I have a couple of short questions.

You're a groundfish fisherman. What kinds of fish did you fish, apart from cod?

[Translation]

Mr. Alyre Gauvin: I was a cod fishermen. Cod accounted for 90 per cent of our catches. Sometimes, we happened to catch other species of fish such as flounder and groundfish. But basically, we were cod fishermen.

I forgot one very important detail.

[English]

The Chairman: You didn't have a restricted licence. You don't have a lobster licence.

[Translation]

Mr. Alyre Gauvin: No, no licence other than a groundfish licence.

[English]

The Chairman: Totally groundfish.

[Translation]

Mr. Alyre Gauvin: There was one other very important detail. The group I represent established the ITQ management principle. We were part of this. Our objective was not in any way to manage species, but rather to manage a fleet. There is a difference. We have groundfish, and then we have the groundfish fleet. Our goal was to manage a fleet and believe me, we could have been successful. We conducted rationalization exercises well before the closure of the groundfishery.

• 1700

[English]

The Chairman: What type of gear did you use?

[Translation]

Mr. Alyre Gauvin: We use mobile gear, that is we drag a trawl net behind a boat. There are two techniques which are more or less similar. There is the Scottish seining technique where we use mobile gear which is dragged behind a boat, and then there is the trawl, another type of gear which we haul behind the boat. These are different from fixed gear which are dropped over the side and remain stationary.

[English]

The Chairman: So it's actually a small drag?

[Translation]

Mr. Alyre Gauvin: Yes, they are small drags, because we use small trawlers. We do not use large boats.

[English]

The Chairman: A small trawler. You didn't have baited hook?

Mr. Alyre Gauvin: No.

The Chairman: No. “Trawl” to some people is a baited hook—a line with hooks on it.

[Translation]

Mr. Alyre Gauvin: The correct expression in English is longlining.

The Chairman: I see.

Mr. Alyre Gauvin: These are technical details, but I would be more than happy to explain them to you.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes. Did you meet the requirements of—we call it SEC, the special eligibility criteria before CORE, before TAGS?

[Translation]

Mr. Alyre Gauvin: Yes, absolutely.

[English]

The Chairman: You did.

[Translation]

Mr. Alyre Gauvin: Absolutely. We participated in that program. We were even consulted back then. Unfortunately, everyone was invited to express their views on what they believed the eligibility criteria should be. These criteria became so flexible that in the end, I'm sure that some dead people received money under the TAGS program, but I can't be certain of that.

[English]

The Chairman: You're right.

[Translation]

You're right.

Mr. Alyre Gauvin: I thought so. As far as I'm concerned, this shows that once again the consultation that took place was not objective, but rather political.

[English]

The Chairman: Did you meet CORE?

[Translation]

Mr. Alyre Gauvin: Core fishermen. Perhaps you would be interested in more information.

This morning, Mr. Belliveau talked about bona fide fishermen. Quebec has never had access to this licencing policy one way or another. That's another detail. We too subscribe to the bona fide policy. We had to withdraw from this program because it was not necessarily conducive to sound fleet management.

You can go with any type of fleet management system that you like, but it won't do anything for species conservation. We were forced to abandon this system and we had no problem with that. We had to choose between the core policy, the ITQ system and the bona fide system. In terms of fleet management, we agreed that the ITQ system was the preferred approach to fleet management.

[English]

The Chairman: But do you meet the requirements of CORE now? Are the men in your organization classified as CORE fishermen?

[Translation]

Mr. Alyre Gauvin: Yes.

The Chairman: They are?

Mr. Alyre Gauvin: Yes.

The Chairman: I see.

[English]

How many of those fishermen are left receiving TAGS because they fish 90% cod?

[Translation]

Mr. Alyre Gauvin: I'm not certain that I understood the question.

[English]

The Chairman: Oh, I'm sorry.

[Translation]

Mr. Alyre Gauvin: I want to be certain that I understood the question. Could you repeat it?

[English]

The Chairman: How many of your organizations are receiving TAGS benefits?

[Translation]

Mr. Alyre Gauvin: Our entire group, as well as all crew members.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. So they are on TAGS until May, are they?

[Translation]

Mr. Alyre Gauvin: Yes. Perhaps we should focus on this point a little more. We had come up with some alternative solutions which, in my view, were quite valid and which would have enabled us to wean ourselves off TAGS. The government never considered our proposals.

[English]

The Chairman: Could we have a copy of your recommendations?

[Translation]

Mr. Alyre Gauvin: Yes. I don't have them with me here today, but I could send them to you. That's no problem. Our recommendations concerned temporary shrimp and crab quotas and would not have cost the government a penny. If this had been managed properly, we wouldn't have needed a lot. I agree that this posed a problem for traditional crab and shrimp fishermen. I respect that. However, temporary quotas were allocated and we were ignored. In New Brunswick, for example, crab quotas were allocated to the MFU whose members were all very active in fishing other species, while we, on the other hand, were overlooked.

• 1705

In 1995, the department supplied an allowance to the MFU and informed it—I could send you proof of this—that it had a responsibility to take care of those who depended on the groundfishery. We were confident that we would be included in this program. We contacted the MFU and informed it that we were prepared to negotiate an agreement of some sort so that our people could work. No way! Only two of our vessels were chartered by the MFU at far below the going rate, ostensibly to collect money which would go to help our communities. I would like to know where that money ended up. Only two of our vessels were chartered out of a fleet of over 20!

• 1710

Last year, the minister promised to see to it that we would be able to participate in this program. He informed us that the program would be shared between two groups, the MFU and my group, the APPFA. He told us that we should reach an agreement amongst ourselves as far as managing the program was concerned. We decided to go along and play the game. We held an initial meeting with the other group and what it was offering us was ridiculous. We went back home and told the government it would be very difficult to reach an agreement. The government told us to try again. Ultimately, we agreed to a mediator who would submit a report. But again, this approach failed. The department announced that we had to make a decision by the following Friday and that we needed to see if indeed we could agree amongst ourselves. Both parties met in a hotel room in Moncton. We negotiated until four o'clock in the morning without reaching an agreement. We were asking for—and I could give you proof of this as well—a legitimate share of this transitional allowance. The MFU felt we were asking for too much. The talks lasted until 4 a.m.

Four hours later, at 8 a.m., we arrived at the DFO office in Moncton. Max Short came in—he had spent the night at the same hotel as us—and announced that the minister had made a decision sometime overnight. Would you believe that his decision was very similar to the allowance-sharing proposal of the MFU. Was he acting in good faith? We didn't even receive enough to make our payments.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Gauvin, we have the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans here, and Mr. Short, as you say, was the assistant to two or three ministers. Before you leave here today, I would appreciate it if you would have a discussion with Mr. Easter concerning your objections to Mr. Short, so that Mr. Easter can be apprised of them and we can perhaps address those problems as a committee.

I know you don't have copies of the submissions you made, but if you could give them to me directly, deal with me as the chairman of the committee, so that we can examine those suggestions before we write our report in the middle of January.... Would you commit yourself to doing that, to getting in touch with me directly, but to speak before we leave today to the parliamentary secretary concerning Mr. Short? Can you assure me you will do that?

[Translation]

Mr. Alyre Gauvin: Yes, I promise.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Alyre Gauvin: Perhaps we could come back to... I have been critical of several fisher associations, but I would also like to direct my criticism to several government officials, because this is the first time that I've met with the fisheries committee since the closure of the groundfishery.

You have to understand that since the closure of the fishery, I have met with only one fisheries minister, despite repeated requests. We met with him for one hour in Ottawa, after receiving a mere 24-hours notice. We were called and informed that we had 24 hours to get to Ottawa. We arrived at the office of the minister, who at the time was the Honourable Fred Mifflin. He sat down at the end of the table and said...

We arrived at his office along with other fishermen's associations who were doing the same thing as us. We came to Ottawa and the minister sat down and told us not to talk to him about temporary allowances, or about TAGS, or about licence buy-backs, or about any other such thing. Talk to me about groundfish, he said.

• 1715

To which we responded: Mr. Minister, the groundfishery is closed. What more can we say? The meeting lasted 45 minutes and we were extremely disheartened. A small organization like mine had paid over $1,100 for my ticket to Ottawa, only to have the minister tell me, three years after the fact, that the cod fishery was closed. I was extremely disappointed.

That's how things have been since the closure of the groundfishery. We are on the losing end and this situation has been extremely distressing for us. We own small boats, but we are heavily indebted. We are at our wits end. Each year, someone else gives up.

Is that what the minister meant by rationalization? Crab and shrimp fishermen who are in arrears depend almost completely on a groundfish licence for additional income. All fishermen who are in debt, whether lobster, herring, mackerel or scallop fishers, all have a groundfish licence.

There's another point I would like to make. This morning, Mr. Hubbard claimed that in the interest of conservation, many inshore fishermen did not fish all of the licences. That's not true. Mr. Hubbard was misinformed.

Everyone had an opportunity to participate. However, some fisheries were far too lucrative back then for fishers to waste their time fishing cod.

[English]

The Chairman: So you will do that before you leave the meeting concerning Mr. Short. I don't want you to forget that, okay?

Some of the members may have questions for you, but I'd like to deal with some of the others before we get to any of them.

First of all, I'd like to go to the Conservation Council of New Brunswick. I think that's the organization. I wonder if you could tell the committee members just what is the Conservation Council of New Brunswick and give us your name.

Ms. Inka Milewski (President, Conservation Council of New Brunswick): My name is Inka Milewski and I'm the president of the Conservation Council of New Brunswick. We're an organization that was started in 1969. We are a membership-driven, citizen-based organization. Our mandate is really to ensure that the resources that sustain this province economically, ecologically, and socially are there in the future.

People are talking about having foresight. In 1969, when we drew up our charter, we actually used the words “sustainable development”—long before Madam Brundtland made them popular.

We're an organization that has put solutions to issues of resource sustainability. We've put them forward and that's what we're here today to discuss.

I have a brief for you and I also have a publication that I will refer to. Mr. Baker, I think you received a copy of this.

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Inka Milewski: I have extra copies. Unfortunately, this brief was stapled at 2 p.m. this afternoon and I don't have a translation for you. If I could....

The Chairman: Yes, you can certainly begin. Mr. Hubbard will take the chair just for a moment while I do something else. Thank you.

Ms. Inka Milewski: All right.

The Conservation Council of New Brunswick has spent the last three years examining the history of the current groundfishery crisis in Atlantic Canada. We've been working towards addressing an alternative approach to fisheries management, one that really respects fish and the communities that depend on these resources.

We are participating in these hearings because we believe the current analysis of what went wrong in the fisheries and what to do about it is deeply flawed. As your committee has no doubt heard from various sectors, there are too many fishermen chasing too few fish and the solution is to impose ITQs and TAGS. The rational for this ITQ and TAGS was to help reduce the number of fishermen. ITQs were supposed to provide fishermen the means to retire from the fishery, because it gave them a tradable commodity. Under a privatized fishery, fishermen will be able to sell their right or licence to fish to the highest bidder. The assumed outcome is there will be fewer people fishing, and those left in the fishery will be better guardians of the resource because they own it.

• 1720

This simplistic solution demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of fish and fishing. Privatization does not and will not require quota owners to care for spawning fish, protect spawning habitat and juvenile fishing grounds. These are the cornerstones of the fishery. If you don't protect spawning fish and habitat, you have no fish. Nor will privatization require fishermen to change their fishing practices to avoid by-catch, high grading, or habitat destruction.

We believe there are two key reasons why just about every commercial fish stock is near collapse or in crisis. The current quota-based system of management, where it is assumed that fish can be counted and then managed, has failed to protect fish stocks from collapse. Couple that with unregulated technology.

In the first instance, if fisheries management is just a matter of counting fish and adjusting fishing effort from year to year, then why have the various groundfish stocks that have been under moratorium for a number of years failed to recover despite no fishing effort? There is a need to shift science and management effort from single-species quota management to multi-species, ecosystem-based management. The inadequacy of science is directly related to the question it tries to address. If you are not asking the right questions, you're not going to get the answers. Management must ask new and different questions, and science needs to respond to these questions. We need to shift from calculating how many fish are out there to determining when, where, and how fish are caught. This form of management is called parametric or ecosystem management.

I might add that if it is a little technical, I'll answer any questions. I am a marine biologist and that's my background, and I can bring to bear some of that knowledge to answer some questions.

It has been argued, and this is debated in the scientific literature, that the kind of information that is required to manage fish under this different system, this parametric or ecosystem-based management, is too great and not dependable. I might just say at this point that while numerous fisheries are under moratorium, there are legions of scientists and technicians that are out there right now gathering scientific information by the boatload, plugging it into computer models, and they still haven't figured out why the stocks are not recovering. So shifting to a new system of management is going to transfer what I think is currently a very useless effort.

We believe the type of information we need to collect should be done at the scale at which fish populations function. This means breaking down fish stocks from one management unit. We talk about 4T cod or 4X haddock, or whatever. We now know that a fish stock can be made up of many discrete populations, each with a definable set of characteristics. We need to identify and monitor these sub- or meta-populations, as they're called, over the long term, and we are more likely to see important trends and patterns that tell us more about the state of the ecosystem and fishery than knowing just how many fish are out there.

• 1725

Knowing you haven't enough fish to fish doesn't tell you anything about the ability of that fish to recover. This also means that data gathering, analysis, enforcement, and management has to be decentralized to correspond to the scale of the ecological information gathered.

Second, the federal government has failed to address the role of technology in the fishing crisis. We reject the notion that there are too many fishermen; we don't buy it. We believe there is too much technology, and until technology and gear are reined in, fisheries management of any sort will be unlikely and it's going to fail. Currently, the industry has the capacity to find, access, and catch every fish in the ocean.

A little more than a year ago the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, which as you may know is an arm of the government set up to provide advice to the minister, released a discussion paper and held consultations on gear technology. Instead of identifying the ecological or conservation needs of fish and developing a set of criteria for the usage, design, and relative desirability of groundfish gear that respects these needs, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council placed the interests of the technology ahead of conservation.

For example, the “Consultation Paper on Gear Technology” did not address how gear is used, when it is used, and the scale of technology. Gear has to be evaluated against the ecological and biological requirements of fish, not people, because it's the fish that provide people with employment.

Ecological criteria mean protecting energy flows in the food web. In this case, gear must be designed to minimize the catch of unwanted species and sizes and to limit the overall catch per trip.

Biological criteria mean protecting habitat for various life stages and avoiding the harvesting of eggs and spawners, and it requires both specialization in gear and the manner of its usage. This means gear must be designed to minimize destruction of spawning areas and juvenile habitat for all commercial species, not just groundfish, and that means lobster habitat, scallop habitat.

As for the scale of technology, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council completely ducked this issue, demonstrating the continuing policy dissonance between conservation, as put in the hands of the FRCC, and development, which is DFO's mandate. While the gear technology subcommittee indicated it is not the FRCC's intention to recommend the banning of any particular gear type, DFO's fishery's policy has contemplated banning the least-damaging, most conservation-friendly groundfish gear, the hook and line sector. DFO has determined that groundfish long-lining is not a key licence and therefore has suggested its elimination. Two other conservation-oriented fisheries, herring weirs and shut-offs, have also been considered for elimination under a groundfish restructuring.

As a result of our analysis, the Conservation Council is advocating a complete reorientation and restructuring of fisheries management. In developing this new management structure for fisheries we have been guided by two principles. Proprietary rights to the common fisheries resource should be allocated to those geographic communities most dependent on it. The other principle is that the management of fisheries should be placed in public hands at the community level and not privatized to individuals and the corporate interests.

• 1730

The restructuring process begins by placing trusteeship of and responsibility for fish resources at the community level. We believe this level of management mimics or parallels the level at which ecological events and changes occur in nature, and they are most readily observed by the people who are out on the water.

It also allows the community to carry out integrated management of the resource and the environment. So where you have a situation where there's a development proposed, as we did in southwest New Brunswick for rockweed harvesting, the fishing community has been opposed to this because they know it's a vital habitat for at least six commercially important species. They have no influence in those decisions. In a community-based management system those people would not permit this to happen.

Of course, this community-based management requires new community institutions and structures. We proposed three levels of institutions to oversee fishing, conservation, and habitat. At the community level, which we define in geographic terms, it is not a community of fishermen, but a community in terms of geography and ecology.

There would be an elected community fisheries board with a fisheries management council comprised of fishing industry representatives as a subset. At the larger ecosystem level there would be a bio-regional fisheries board with representatives from the community fisheries board. There would be an offshore fisheries board.

With a shift to community-based management, much of DFOs budget allocation for management in administration would be transferred to these new community and regional institutions. It's difficult to really elaborate on our approach in the very short time allocated.

I urge you to read our publication, entitled “Beyond Crisis in the Fisheries”, a proposal for community-based ecological fisheries management. It outlines in more detail the role and function of each of these boards as well as the analysis that brought us to this position.

You are no doubt thinking that restructuring completely the current traditional approach to fisheries management will be a lot of work, and it will be difficult—it will be. We believe there is no choice but to deal with these issues. Yet without this kind of scale of restructuring, I promise we will lose more fish stocks and we will lose the communities that depend on them. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Matthews, I wonder if you could wait for your question until after we've heard from the others. It's just in case we get to the end and somebody may not be able to give their presentation properly.

I wonder if we could go next to Wesley Myles from the New Brunswick Salmon Council.

Mr. Wesley Myles (Past President, New Brunswick Salmon Council): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's a tough act to follow. I was hoping you were going to ask somebody else.

Jim Gillepsie, chairman of the New Brunswick Salmon Council, was unable to make it today because of the snowstorm in Saint John. I think had he known he was going to be at this time for the presentation he probably would have come.

The New Brunswick Salmon Council is a body representing 21 affiliated organizations within this province. It has a three-part mandate:

1) To promote and encourage the protection, conservation, and enhancement of the Atlantic salmon for all user groups.

2) To provide public education and to foster an awareness of the value of the salmon and the realization that proper management is vital to the survival of this unique resource.

3) To encourage protection, restoration and proper management of the habitat necessary to the salmon's survival.

• 1735

I have a very short brief. The brief was shortened somewhat by Miramichi Watershed Management. They were to go first, and a lot of the things that we were going to say were already said by them. So we cut ours down to four or five points that we'd like to emphasize.

The current management of the Atlantic salmon resource in New Brunswick is shared by two regional jurisdictions within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: the Scotia-Fundy region, and the Gulf region.

Management techniques and strategies often differ one from the other, and they're often the subject of conflict and confusion within the two regions, as well as within the users of the resource.

Presently, an imaginary line divides conservation, protection, and science in zone 23 along the Saint John River. Despite repeated requests over the last ten years for DFO to implement a one-region, one-river team, our efforts have been ignored.

The New Brunswick Salmon Council would recommend that the management of the Atlantic salmon resource in the province be under the complete jurisdiction of one region, rather than two, and that this region be located within the province.

Each year, negotiations take place between DFO and the several first nations in our province. Also each year, the timeframes for the finalization of some or all of these agreements extend beyond the opening date of fishing season, thereby allowing for an incidental catch over and above the allocations contained within the agreement. It has been suggested that escapement levels in some rivers may be suffering as a result of the lateness in signing these agreements.

The New Brunswick Salmon Council recommends that all fishing agreements with first nations in New Brunswick be negotiated in good faith and should be in place no later than April 1 of each year.

The devolution of salmon hatcheries in Atlantic Canada is difficult to rationalize. While in fact there may be more hatcheries than are required to maintain the support necessary for the dwindling salmon population, we believe that DFO has prematurely abandoned the salmon resource in the province. The requirements for hatchery assistance in those rivers that have not been meeting their escapement levels is necessary if we are to ever achieve sustainability in the resource.

In these times of declining returns, it's most certainly the time to enhance the juvenile populations of our river to an even greater extent by using the expertise and cooperation of DFO staff.

The New Brunswick Salmon Council would recommend that the the divestiture of all salmon hatcheries in the province should be put on hold until such time that the salmon resource in the rivers serviced by each has reached optimum requirements and that special funding, similar to that which is in place on the west coast, be put in place to support these facilities.

Each year, rivers in New Brunswick suffer at the hand of Mother Nature or man in his quest for prosperity. Currently, the tributaries of the inner Bay of Fundy are experiencing a mystery to resource users in that salmon runs have all but disappeared from their boundaries.

Fish-passage facilities on several rivers are in drastic need of modernization and much-needed improvement. Habitat destruction due to erosion, siltation, and other man-made environmental conditions are in an almost-too-late situation because of cutbacks in manpower and financial resources at DFO.

So the New Brunswick Salmon Council would recommend that additional resources be allocated to assist in the improvement of the above areas and that special funding be applied to the problems in the inner rivers of the Bay of Fundy.

We also feel strongly that DFO should become more aggressive in prosecuting habitat violations contrary to the federal Fisheries Act.

• 1740

Against the advice of conservation, native, and angling users of the salmon resource in the Saint John River, senior officials within DFO proceeded with the sacrificial killing of 42 male one-sea winter salmon at the Mactaquac Fish Culture Station on two occasions in 1997 to provide fish for native food requirements. This exercise took place on a river that has not met or exceeded spawning escapement in any of the last 14 years, and on a river that was, by variation order, closed to all users of the salmon resource for conservation reasons.

A varied number of excuses for this sacrifice have come forth from within DFO and from the Honourable Mr. Anderson, which remain totally unacceptable to the Salmon Council. We question the move in providing fish versus our interpretation of the minister's fiduciary responsibility of providing the opportunity to fish. The New Brunswick Salmon Council recommends advance notice of any removals from this troubled river and that an improved communication effort on the part of DFO be incorporated into the regional management plan for 1997.

It is common knowledge that user groups are unhappy with being told how their tax dollars are going to manage the resource rather than having the opportunity to be consulted in a democratic manner.

A brief summer in the Atlantic salmon resource in New Brunswick is one of our most valued and precious commodities. The return of this unique fish to our rivers each year is a signal that our rivers are clean and healthy and that it makes an important contribution to the economy of our province. It is imperative that DFO improve the consultative process, provide expert advice, and cooperate in every way with all users of the resource in a team environment if we are to have a salmon resource in the future.

Many opportunities are out there to work together to rebuild this unique and renewable resource, and there appears to be no better time than the present.

The New Brunswick Council supports the brief that was submitted today by Miramichi Watershed, almost totally word for word. We've had the opportunity to see it before. I'd like to have that recorded.

The Chairman: So recorded, Mr. Myles.

Mr. Wesley Myles: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

We have three other presenters who want to have a few words, so we'll go to Jean.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Gauvin (Crabiers Nord-Est): Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the members of the committee for this opportunity to express our views on the management of the Atlantic groundfishery. This is indeed a unique opportunity for us to speak directly to our elected officials.

I would like to begin by focussing on several points which caught our attention. I listened very closely to the presentations this morning. When I heard people refer this morning to the new partnership concept developed by the federal government, it was as if we, commonly known as the lords of the manor, had developed the concept and forced the federal government to travel down that road.

Mr. Chairman, I beg to differ. In the fall of 1995, the federal government invited us to sit down at the table and discuss this partnership concept, as it was known at the time, and what we now call co-management, because legislation had not yet been passed.

• 1745

We negotiated in good faith from September until February. We spent a fortune on trips to Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City. Negotiation was an extremely frustrating process because we literally had the wool pulled over our eyes in that we truly believed that the officials sitting across from us at the bargaining table had a mandate to negotiate on behalf of the federal government. On a number of occasions, we asked if indeed they had the authority to negotiate and the answer we got was always yes.

On February 18, I believe, we signed a duly executed agreement with federal government officials. We then sat back and waited. The agreement was presented to the then minister, the Honourable Fred Mifflin. Between February 18 and April 11, the day on which we were called to Ottawa for the unveiling of the fishery strategy, so many changes were made that the plan was now the exact opposite of what was contained in the contract duly signed with the federal government. I mention this because my colleagues talked about the circumstances leading up to the strategy. I want to get to the crux of the problem.

Subsequently, an injunction was issued. We were approached once again and asked to come back to the bargaining table after this blatant deception. We reluctantly agreed. It would appear that it is becoming increasingly popular to negotiate fishing strategies at the last minute because then, you are negotiating with a gun pointed to people's heads.

By 1997, the provincial government was involved. Mr. Mifflin had also set aside a place at the table for plant workers and crew members. We were told—I realize that this is not your jurisdiction, that we were dealing with the provincial government— that if we wanted to be generous, we had to think about setting aside 10 cents per pound in a fund and in exchange, the province would support our request for 16,000 tons. We were duped in 1996 and again in 1997. In the end, it cost us 15 cents a pound and we got 12,000 tons or so. So then, when it comes to a partnership, how can you expect the traditional industry to have any confidence in the bargaining agents when we are being screwed again, and again, and again.

When I heard people speak this morning about the partnership concept, they seemed to be pointing the blame at us and implying that we were the ones who invented the concept. However, it was imposed on us by the federal government. I can tell you that the traditional industry, that is the midshore fishermen in zone 12, have suffered losses since 1995 the likes of which they have never seen before because of this concept was forced upon them.

Mr. Chairman, someone mentioned $500,000 this morning to the public and to the press, the implication being that midshore fishermen pocket this amount each year. While we did indeed mention a threshold of $500,000, I have to tell you that

[English]

and I want to be on record with this, that when you look at all the expenses, when you look at putting 15¢ in a fund, when you look at sharing 2,987 tonnes of the traditional quota, and when you take all the expenses of the boat and the sharing, in those instances, Mr. Chairman, you're better off being a lobster fisherman than a crabber, when you go to the bank.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, we also heard someone say this morning that New Brunswick was the only province without an inshore fishery zone.

• 1750

That may be true, but I must tell you that

[English]

that Mr. Easter could stand up tomorrow morning and say that P.E.I. doesn't have a single mid-shore fisherman in his province. Nova Scotia could stand up tomorrow morning and say they have only two mid-shore licences in their province. We have 81 mid-shore licences in New Brunswick. Why do we have 81 mid-shore licences in New Brunswick? Because we were the first province to have in-shore fisheries in the crab industry.

I can recall that we had some in-shore fishermen fishing in the Chaleur Bay. I'm sure Mr. Hubbard will agree with me. When we had good government in New Brunswick we built six mid-shore boats in one year. All those in-shore fishermen became mid-shore fishermen in New Brunswick. They were not individual quotas at that time, so they were not able to catch their quota in Chaleur Bay. The province of New Brunswick had to build mid-shore boats, and they were transferred as mid-shore fishermen. Now all those in-shore fishermen are mid-shore fishermen in New Brunswick. So we have to be very careful about how the code goes out when we talk about this.

[Translation]

Someone also said that the impression was that traditional crabbers were planning to take over the fishery.

Other fleets also have multiple licences, whether it be for lobster, herring, scallops or oysters. Most of those involved in the traditional fishery have only a crab licence. If this fishery is run into the ground because of mismanagement, we will ultimately experience the same fate as that which awaited the groundfishery.

I felt I had to make these comments, particularly because the industry is deeply concerned by this matter. We readily admit that it is not easy to manage a resource that fluctuates because of poorly understood factors.

Moreover, we depend almost completely on scientific evaluations and also on political interference. It is unfortunate that politicians feel the need to interfere in the drafting of fishery strategies which ultimately serve no one.

As for the plan announced on April 11, 1996, it was the interference of politicians in various ridings which led to a strategy totally different from the agreement negotiated on February 18.

Let me give you a few examples. In the case of this important resource, albeit one that is not necessarily important from a political standpoint, officials are the ones who decide on a strategy, like the one for the shrimp fishery.

However, in the case of the snow crab, the Minister as well as all those jockeying for position around him are the ones who determine the fate of the resource, regardless of the pressure put on this resource. The same thing that happened to the groundfishery is happening in this sector. Why is this? Because these politicians imagine that they can win a few votes. In our view, sound management is not a political issue, but rather a matter of treating the resource with respect.

We hope that the June 2 elections will have taught these people a valuable lesson. Some of those seated here will recall that the former member for the Gaspé region had championed the proposal for an inshore fishery zone during the election campaign. He discovered that it was not wise to use a resource which must be managed rationally for political gains.

• 1755

When it comes to reopening the groundfishery, it is common knowledge that politicians will have scientists say or do anything once again for political purposes.

Many industry people feel that it was a monumental mistake in the first place to close zone 4T instead of reducing quotas in a rational manner.

The same catastrophe befell the Europeans when the North Sea herring fishery was shut down in the 1980s. Consumers changed their dietary habits and the industry lost its markets. Consequently, the fishery has been slow to recover.

Clearly, Fisheries and Oceans Canada is resorting to a band- aid style of administration. To alleviate the problem, we strongly urge the federal government to involve the industry in the decision-making process instead of pretending to consult it, under the guise of co-management or partnership, or else to make it a full partner.

One good example of this is the situation in the crab fishery. Although the industry is supposed to be an equal partner, and although it objects to some decisions, such as the one to travel needlessly to Japan, officials continue to make unilateral decisions. They claim that the industry is a partner, but while one party collectively says no, the other decides unilaterally, discounting the opinions of the so-called partner.

It is deplorable that bureaucrats sitting in their ivory tower don't listen more to the industry, because the situation could only improve. As long as they continue to argue that the resource needs to be protected to justify their decisions, all we are going to see is continued crisis management.

In order to find out what fishery people truly think about Fisheries and Oceans Canada, if this committee is really serious, it needs to consult with fishers individually, that is by sending them a questionnaire. Publicly, you'll never get an answer to your question. Fishers are afraid to vent their frustrations, fearing reprisals from the department.

In conclusion, let me just say that we need to depoliticize the decision-making process and get the industry actively involved. This would avoid situations where senior officials make decisions without knowing all of the facts, decisions which adversely affect all sectors involved. As Mr. Alyre Gauvin mentioned earlier—I read Mr. Hubbard's article carefully last week—, I don't blame you for calling into question some of the information which has probably been leaked to you.

From the Auditor General on down to the grassroots, there is a lack of transparency, a lack of credibility, and a lack of trust in those people who, for reasons that are perhaps not known, give out false information and never tell it like it is.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gauvin.

You were talking about politicians a few moments ago. Weren't you the minister of fisheries once?

Mr. Jean Gauvin: Yes. That's why I said Jean and not Jack, Mr. Chairman. That why I said that when we had some inshore and they became mid-shore, good government was in power.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: The chair notes it's the Reform Party that's clapping.

We'll now hear from Mr. Alvin Scott. He has his own presentation to make to the committee.

Mr. Alvin Scott (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to speak on behalf of myself and inshore fishermen. I think on this particular day I'm the only inshore fisherman from the inner bay and the Miramichi River as such.

It seems like a long way to come to give a presentation, but at the same time, while listening to the earlier presentations today, I I noted a lot of things from the union that were very self-centred and do not fit the ordinary fisherman or fisherperson. That is one thing.

• 1800

Another was that I did not think the salmon was going to take precedence as it did here today. Going back, as far as I'm concerned.... I come from a fishing family. I was the youngest boy of 10 in the family. I've been fishing since I've been able to crawl into a boat.

One of the things Mr. Mills presented in his presentation today was that he stated that there be a moratorium—I don't know if that is the word he used, but I took it as that—on commercial salmon fishing. He is asking the members of Parliament today to do something they haven't got the right to do. These members of Parliament today, such as a lot of you people around this table, are elected for four years only. You have to face the music another four to five years. You have no right to close this thing down for the next 100 years or so. Salmon is down to a point that maybe they will never return. But should they return, it is not for members of Parliament today to close the doors for somebody to use them in the next century. That is the most unfair thing, and it's very, very unnecessary.

Look at the growth of the salmon as it has been since 1970. We were put ashore in 1970—that was 27 years ago. Stocks were supposed to be down to the point where they would take a good while to return. Five years of a closure would fix this whole thing all up. We've run five years after five years after five years, and today stocks are worse than they were in 1970.

The buy-back that they introduced.... Some of the members outside of government have brought these two words in—the buy-back, which should never have been. It should never have let the federal government think about the licence to buy it back. It went from that, and it's buy-back on everything you look at today in fisheries.

Now, buy-back is one of the things I want to talk about as well in salmon. I'm not going to go too far on that, but you could talk for hours on salmon and the history of it. I served 25 years on the salmon board and met a lot of the people—some of the people around here, and others that are long gone.

As of today, there is one set net salmon privilege on the Miramichi, and it is likely the only one in the province of New Brunswick. It belongs to our son. I had one and he had one. I sold mine and he kept his, for the simple reason he was 22 years old when he kept it. Now he adds 27 years onto that, and look at the state of the salmon. In the time that it would take for it to rebuild itself to allow him back into fisheries, he'd be a very old man. He did not sell, and he applied last year to a lobby group that was working with the government that was buying back rights. They notified him not too long ago that he was too late and had missed the boat, so to speak. These things cannot be bought back by the federal government. It's a very disastrous thing to hear the likes of this.

• 1805

His co-fishermen sold out 27 years ago—some of them got as much as $50,000—and this set them right up on their feet. Here's a young man who could not even get $25,000 for his then, but they had that $25,000 from then until now, and they still do not want to buy this privilege.

He gave them an option that he would trade for two gaspereau licences in the Miramichi system. There are gaspereau licences in abeyance; they're dormant. They don't have to be created by the federal government at all. He did this a year ago, and it was turned down.

This is a fine opportunity for me to present to you people here who do sit around with the federal government so that you know really what's going on and taking place. Even this morning, we heard that the watershed committee is looking for $150,000 to help out on the hatchery sort of thing.

That's fine. The only thing is that this privilege I'm talking about is owed, and this man has gone for a good many years without a season. We listen to the fine presentations here today by the crabbers and other people of the possibilities of people making kind of a secure living and being able to see their way through in the future, but there is not too much of a future for anybody, particularly for this young man now.

So I'm asking for someone on this committee to carry this on to a point that it would be set on the desk of the minister.

The Chairman: Mr. Scott, what you're suggesting to the committee is that we include in our report a proposal to buy out.... How many commercial salmon licences are still left in the province in this area?

Mr. Alvin Scott: There's one set-net fisherman and maybe five or six drift nets.

The Chairman: Five or six drift nets. So we're talking about maybe seven licences.

Mr. Alvin Scott: Yes, seven licences.

The Chairman: We couldn't recommend the buying of one without buying the others out, if they wished to sell. Is that what you're suggesting? Do you want the committee to incorporate that in their report?

Mr. Alvin Scott: There would have to be some effort toward settling this. I know the drifters do want the very same thing. They're not here to present their case today. I'm not a drifter. I have never been one. I'm a set-net fisherman, and of this I would like to speak. I haven't got the authority—I haven't been asked—to speak on their behalf.

The Chairman: But that's the number though. It's only a small number. So your suggestion to the committee is that we should pursue that question with the people who hold the licences and suggest to the government that if they wish to be bought out that they should have the opportunity to be bought out?

Mr. Alvin Scott: Yes. At this point in time, we don't think the government should close the door on anybody. This is exactly what it has done to us.

There have been other questions asked around this table today that represent a lot of effort and a lot of dollars. All we're asking here is for a bit of fair play. For that, all that somebody would have to say is that this should be looked at.

• 1810

As for the idea that the government happens to be close enough to the wall that they can't afford it, they have two gaspereau licences that they could issue him, without costing them a nickel. That would finish this up. That is one of the parts.

I had five different things on this, by the way, Mr. Chairman. I look at some of the things that were said so far today with great exception. The only thing is that there was one gentleman here this morning who spoke on seals. If we look back, when I was a young man, I was a fisherman. About thirty years ago, as far as the people around that were from the angling interest and the civil servants are concerned, we became exploiters. When we speak of somebody like myself now, we call them fishers. That's fine, there's nothing the matter with that. But the fishers that we should be concerned about have only been mentioned once today, and that's our seals.

The salmon is sitting right in the food chain of the seal. Nobody appears to want to do or say too much about it. We've raised this question many times over the the last thirty years or more. You see, a lot of people want to protect the seals. I would ask why. Anyway, the only thing is that this is one of the reasons the salmon are not coming back. So that's one thing.

At one time not too long ago—maybe two years ago—I was a bona fide fisherman. I found out that I have 25 smelt hook licences and I have one gaspereau licence. Because I don't have a herring licence or a mackerel licence, I do not qualify. I did enjoy those privileges back before 1981. I had a salmon licence, I had a mackerel licence then, a gaspereau licence, and the whole bit. But in 1981-82 I worked for a dredging company with one of the boats in two years, and they literally took the herring and mackerel licence from me. Today I could very well become bona fide. There are things available for me to become bona fide, but it would cost me $10,000. I'd have to pay $6,000 to $7,000 for a herring licence, a privilege, and so many odd dollars for gear. This is what I'm faced with here today.

That's one side of the criteria you have to have. You also have to have some other licence besides those. There are only a few like it. With lobster, crab, and other species, you can be passed as bona fide with one species only. I have two, but I have to have the third one, which either involves mackerel or herring. I don't know who would have that, maybe.

The other part of this thing is that if you earn more than 50% of your gross from fisheries or something like this here, the DFO mails this back to you and demotes you to commercial. Now, in 1995 I had $22,000 worth of gaspereau landed and some $40,000 worth of smelts. Nobody looked at this at all. They're not a bit concerned about this sort of thing. It's an important thing as far as I'm concerned, because I have a payroll of $100,000 to meet in a year, and that represents hiring a lot of people. Charlie knows that. There are people who work for me practically year-round, so I have to have a source of revenue, and some of these things here are other species that you can use to come up to meet your payroll.

• 1815

I don't know what we can do about this at this point in time. Do you have multiple choice on this? Do you have to have the herring licence? Or do you have to provide the x amount of dollars that you earned each year? My payroll and income taxes have grown from breaking square to paying $27,000 to the federal government in these last few years. So the only thing is that it's hard to tell just what I do in any given year.

The year before last I had sixteen nets all frozen in. They cost me maybe about $1,000 apiece. There's a loss, but that's the way things go. But we've become numbers, you know. We don't have the human touch with the fisheries and fishermen. That's one of the things that maybe we should have a look at too, if we can at all.

We have to go to smelt licensing here for myself and my two sons. We operate a smelt gear. I myself have 25 smelt licences, my two sons have 15 apiece, and we operate them. Right now, we can't transfer them. If anything should happen to me, if I should drop away or something like this here, 25 of those licences would have to be dropped out of that whole operation. They consist of buildings, dredges, machinery, and God only knows what. Half of that would be lost. And there are a few others on the coast in the very same situation.

So this is one of the things we should look at too, to see if we can't do something. In this day and age, they won't let you buy in any more than 15 licences. Whereas this here was a father and son group working together, just because he should leave.... We have maybe $60,000 or $70,000 worth of netting alone for this. If you take 25 licences out of that, what are you going to do with that amount of netting?

There's one other thing on the smelt season. We fish the main river. None of our nets are under 8 feet deep, and they're 24 feet wide by 32 feet long. That's what they are. It takes more than one, two, or three men to operate this. We work where the water is very deep, and ice could move out at any time. We do suffer a loss of gear many, many times. There were some people who lost twenty nets last year. We were fortunate last year because we didn't lose anything, but there were people within a mile of us who lost twenty-some nets. That's a big, big loss. It took them all fall to make them up again.

• 1820

The season started a while ago, but it closes around March 1 each and every year. There's nothing wrong with that whatsoever. But the province of Quebec runs for another two weeks and ships its fish right down to be processed here in the province of New Brunswick.

We would gladly break off on March 1 and keep the market clear for next year, providing no fish were taken in that immediate area. But fishers from Quebec are fishing both sides of the Chaleur. They're hauling them from the north side of the Chaleur right to Richibucto in our province.

These are some of my observations. Charlie, I think maybe we'll leave the other one for a later date. You can make the arrangements and maybe I can meet you in Ottawa on that one, or any of you, because it's getting late now.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Scott; that's very interesting, sir.

Now we go to Mr. Lebreton.

Mr. Emilien Lebreton (Individual Presentation): Monsieur le président, ladies and gentlemen, I can't tell you how proud I am to see such a distinguished group here. Being a former mayor and having been involved here in many activities, I can tell you we're very proud to see such a distinguished group.

We've seen many groups here today, and the first one this morning told you “If you fill my pocket all of a sudden I'll be an ecologist and I'll be concerned about the ecology.” None of the presentations you had here today represented the majority of fishermen in the province. A lot of people are not organized. Some of them are organized but they don't feel that these organizations speak for them. Therefore I'd like to do something different here. There are people in the hall here who are not lawyers but they feel they've been intimidated. I told them I would go in front and they could come over and join me. Is it all right if I ask them to come here?

The Chairman: Sure.

Mr. Emilien Lebreton: Okay. They feel intimidated. They haven't been in the House of Commons.

The Chairman: Come and sit in the seats. Sure.

[Translation]

Mr. Emilien Lebreton: Aside from Raymond Lebouthiller, is there anyone else who would care to address the committee? I know that there are some cockle and oyster fishers present and if someone would like to say something, then I invite them to join me up here.

[English]

You don't have to be afraid; they won't bite you.

The Chairman: Mr. Lebreton, while they're coming up you can continue with your presentation.

Mr. Emilien Lebreton: This morning I gave a sheet to Bill Matthews. I only had five copies and I told him to give one to each of the five political parties. That is not a brief. I want to use that as a tool to show you how things work in the fisheries in the area. So you understand it is not a brief.

By the way, I was not aware that briefs were being presented here. Pardon me for not knowing any better. I thought this would be discussions from the floor. I know a lot of people who would have been here today. A lot of them left because they were intimidated when they saw people who have been bullying and shoving them around give an hour and a half presentation this morning. They were not organized, so they left.

If you take that piece of paper it will show you how things are screwed up for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I have a letter here from a member of the fishermen's union, which you don't have. I'll read one paragraph in French so you'll understand.

• 1825

[Translation]

To deal with the impact of employment insurance reform and in support of the principle of privatization, we recommend that oyster stocks be allocated to bona fide fishers, that the dates for harvesting oysters be restricted to the month of July and that ecological protection continue to be extended to this species.

The letter was written on January 20. I want you to know that I am considered to be the largest oyster producer in the province of New Brunswick. I am not a wealthy man. Oysters don't make millionaires out of people, but I make enough to live on.

[English]

What happens when a person presents this brief to the government? I wish Edgar LeBlanc would come here, because he's one of the Edouard Savoies. All of a sudden we hear the rumour that they want to change fisheries regulations. A rumour.

So I go down there and start talking to the guy. I call him names that I don't want to repeat here. This civil servant tells me that these letters, amongst other ones, have been sent over.

Now, traditionally we start fishing on the first of May, but we keep writing letters all around. We hear there's going to be a review. We don't know if we can fish May 1.

You have some of the letters. These are just a few that were written.

Because of this pressure group, we're up to May 1. I have people who are ready to be hired, ready to go to work. These people quit. They can't wait around with no revenue. They leave.

So this goes along, and we call the Department of Fisheries and Oceans every single day. We can't find out if they're going to have a review. We can't find out if we're going to go fishing. By the last few days of May they decided that they were going to have a meeting on oysters.

Now, we've waited a month. I have a 40-foot boat, among other things, with a diesel engine. I have employees who are waiting to go to work. They can't tell us anything. Edgar LeBlanc, among other people, will confirm this. At the end of May they tell us we can start fishing on the first of June.

They have all year to make policies. Why do they have to wait until the middle of the oyster fishery? A pressure group goes in there and stops me from earning a living. Are we not Canadian? I lost a lot of money that year. This is what happens with DFO.

[Translation]

It has nothing to do with separatism.

[English]

I'm very proud to be a Canadian.

[Translation]

The fact is that when I go to Tracadie to see Fisheries officials, I get the impression that I'm not a Canadian. I would probably get a better reception from the Russian embassy.

These issues are weighing heavily on the minds of fishers. You heard statements this morning from fisheries union representatives, but that is not what people on the docks are talking about. They are talking about trying to take control of the fishery.

[English]

They're trying to take control of the fishery, but when you go to the wharf—Alvin Scott will tell you—that's not what you hear.

Raymond Lebouthiller is here, among other people. Come on up here, Raymond.

Last March 17 I sent to be approved as a nouvel arrivant, so that you can buy a lobster licence or what have you. I finally get to the end of June. I'd been calling all the time. We go up there—and I've been to that building so many times it's not even funny—at 8.30 a.m., when it opens up. Raymond is there waiting on another matter. We sit down there and wait until noon, when they tell us they can't meet us.

I have men who want to go to work. I have to take a day off to go down there.

Anyway, I found out here's the process they take. I'm not allowed to belong to the fishermen's union. If I applied to become a nouvel arrivant, they'd send my letter to the fishermen's union for approval. So they send it to Shediac.

Well, the fishermen's union doesn't know who I am. Remember, I can't belong to it because I'm not a bona fide fisherman.

Finally, I was so annoyed at noon—Raymond can tell you—I said “For God's sake, I've been coming here for three or four months, and I've been waiting here for three more hours to get an answer”. Finally she tells me my paper is on Mr. Chiasson's desk.

Send my application to the union, make me wait for three months, make me wait for three hours that day—and then tell me you can't even meet me to tell me that. This is the kind of service you get in this area. Why do you get this kind of service?

• 1830

First of all, the fishermen's union here.... At one time, if you were a Canadian, everybody was equal. Today, if you don't belong to a pressure group, it seems that you are nobody. Have you heard this before? You're just a nobody. Well, Clément can tell you, right or wrong, that this is the way they're treating us—like nobodies. You have to belong to a pressure group, even if you don't want to belong to it.

Mr. Clément Savoie (Individual Presentation): You do your speech, I'll do mine.

Mr. Émilien Lebreton: So what happens? I go down there. They built a big building in Tracadie. It was a political decision. Rightly or wrongly, it doesn't matter who built it. They hired people to put in there. They had to fill that building up, right? The second thing was that they had to find them a boss, right? You can't have employees without having direction. Once they had these employees hired, they had to give them something to do. The first thing they did was to pull the services that we had in all the small communities—small communities like Nauwigewauk.

As for what Yvon Godin said this morning there, he was making an error. The people are complaining about that office being in his own riding. They want the service in Pointe-Verte to get their paper. With the technology, that's how it used to be done before. But now that they built that office there, we have to go down there and wait for hours. It's a bureaucracy, and these big organizations, these pressure groups are in bed with these civil servants. You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours. This is how it works.

For example, I'll explain to you how we work. We drag oysters out of the river. We do what we call relay. We transfer the oysters to our beds. If I hire an employee to measure oysters.... One other year, they came up with the bright idea that we needed an oyster licence to measure oysters on our boats. In other words, you needed a lobster licence to fish in a boat. Fine. But we hire temporary people. If somebody quit on my boat, I'd have to park my boat at the wharf, go to Tracadie, lose half a day to get them—and I have the sheets here to prove it—to add them on. There's no need for that. This is what the fishermen are talking about on the wharf, you know. It's a big bureaucracy that we don't need. It's all in here.

To make things more aggravating, I thought I was fishing, but now they tell me I'm in aquaculture because I take wild stock and take them to my beds. I have a smelt licences like him, but I can't give them to my son. They tell me I fall through the cracks. Well, I always thought a civilized society made room for people who fell through the cracks. Apparently in Canada we don't.

I'm at the wharf. I fish longer than anybody else at the wharf, except for this year. I hire more people at my wharf than anybody else. When they have a wharf meeting, I am not allowed to go to a meeting because I'm not bona fide. Would you believe I am not allowed to go to a wharf meeting—according to François Breau, he told me this week—because the Department of Fisheries told him that it was only for so-called professional fishermen. It doesn't matter that my revenue is higher than some of the other boys there. It doesn't matter that I hire more people than they do. I'm not saying that they do, or whether or not it's not important. I am just a nobody. We're all just nobodies, and this group here pretends to talk for us.

I went there. I was one of the first ones to apply for a crab licence. I can't get a crab licence. I have the rig and a 42-foot diesel boat that I fish with. I can't apply for a crab licence because they give the course at the union and I can't belong to the union. Some democracy. They are the people who judge me, but I can't belong to the organization. They have a terrible way of doing things, and you are turning over the fisheries to a self-interested group.

This lady said something here—and I wish she was still here—that was very important. We used to have fisheries officers. We don't any more. Now we have people officers. They spend their time in the office. Instead of worrying about ecology, about protecting the fish stocks, and so on and so forth, what they're doing is the same thing that happened in the East Bloc countries: they are worried about managing people. Are you following me? They're worried about managing people.

• 1835

You know, I don't want to give you a lesson, but the East Bloc countries had the best human rights, the best ecology law, but they made the worst mess out of it, didn't they? It was a terrible mess in the East Bloc countries, yet they had fantastic laws and they were building up the same system.

Everybody in the world is deregulating. Right? The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is regulating.

The theme in all my letters, and I have hundreds of them, is scientific fact should be the basis for determining fisheries policies—scientific fact, not pressure groups.

Some people say these guys who manage fisheries have education the length of your arm. But they don't make scientific studies. They're just there if somebody makes a stupid policy and tells them there's no water on the table and they say “Yes, I have a doctorate, and I don't see any water on the table.”

What I call scientific fact is going out into the field and making a scientific study according to international scientific methods that are used. There are ways to do things. If you a take a square metre and count the oysters that are there, even if the fishermen's union tells you there are no oysters, don't believe them.

I am so annoyed. I could be here the whole day. This is what's happening on the wharf and it's what people are talking about. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans here today has to have fisheries officers again. Put people in the field, take people out of the offices and reduce the paper work. Every time you run to Tracadie you need somebody who does paperwork. It's a terrible system and everybody is afraid to say it.

I'm not going to be very popular because I want to turn to some of the other people. You're supposed to follow everything, but some of the poor people around here are being screwed by the fishermen's union and the government. I have smelt nets where my dad had smelt nets. Our family was fishing before the deportation. When other Canadians were farmers, we were fishermen. My son will be the first generation that will not be able to get my smelt nets.

When the international union took jurisdiction over things, if you were an electrician you had to change the light bulb. Do you understand what I mean? What you're supposed to do—and these people have had preference the last few years—is fish for ten weeks and go on welfare and unemployment insurance. Then you are respected and can become bona fide. If you try to work at anything to earn a living, you are discouraged from doing that. And that's why they don't like me.

I was up in Alberta for some years. I worked at Fort McMurray for a few months to try to make a buck. Right now I'm going to the woods. I'm not the only one. A lot of fishermen do this.

We need to get back to the sensible thing. Don't believe this baloney that if you fill somebody's pocket all of a sudden you won't be destroying the ecology. Don't believe that. It was the same thing when the millwrights took over certain restrictions and the pipefitters took over instrumentation. This is the only thing you've heard here today, but most of us are like Alvin Scott and me.

I have licences. And gentlemen, what are you going to do about my licence that I can't give to my son? Don't I have a right to earn a living here? Do I have to fish and be on welfare the rest of the year? The way it is right now the fishermen can buy a fish plant, but the fish plant operator can't buy a fishing licence. What kind of country is that?

The fishermen now own the majority of fish plants in the province of New Brunswick, either directly or indirectly. They took the route of being fishermen and buying fish plants. If they had taken the route the other way.... It doesn't seem like fair play to me.

I want to turn to Raymond Lebouthiller, if I may.

[Translation]

Mr. Raymond Lebouthiller (Individual Presentation): I went to Tracadie to get my oyster licence, because we need to apply for one at least two to three weeks in advance. About three days before leaving, I purchased a boat and all of the gear. I spent a considerable amount of money.

• 1840

However, when I got to Tracadie, I was told that I could not have my licence because my bed was polluted. There were two of us there wanting a licence. Our requests were denied because the beds were supposedly contaminated. I asked the official how he knew that to be true since he had never gone and tested the water. You need to test the water in order to determine if a bed is contaminated.

It took three weeks before someone came to test the water and in the meantime, we lost between 13,000 and 14,000 pounds of oysters at $1.35 a pound. Other fishers lost an equal amount of money.

I went to see the boss and argued that Fisheries and Oceans had been the one to contaminate the water, not us. However, Fisheries and Oceans defended its workers. I consulted a lawyer to see what recourse was available to us. A lawyer costs $20,000. The town has to stand up to DFO. We have to pay for our lawyer and also for the government's lawyer. What are we supposed to do?

Five fishers experienced the same problem. I checked around the town, but no one lifted a finger. I even met with the Fisheries minister, but it went in one ear and out the other.

Mr. Emilien Lebreton: If I understand correctly,

[English]

the village shore had a malfunction at one time. The problem was corrected. Instead of the Department of Fisheries making a test to see what was wrong, they waited a year to make a test. He's waiting to get his licence to go fishing there. I was there that morning. It's an example. When I was there they told him it was the province's responsibility. He went to see the province and they said it was a federal responsibility.

The Chairman: When was this, by the way? What date was this?

Mr. Raymond Lebouthiller: This fall,

[Translation]

on July 29. Once the lobster fishery is over, we fish in July. Starting on July 1, I take two assistants with me and we fish for approximately three weeks. As a rule, the boys and I catch between 14,000 and 15,000 pounds. Even then, I lost $15,000 and never heard anything back from the Department.

[English]

The Chairman: Sure, because of it.... Okay, let's listen to Clem for a second and then we're going to go on.

Clem.

[Translation]

Mr. Clément Savoie: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Mr. Hubbard finds this amusing, but he surely knows what I'm going to talk about. I'm one of the oldest fishers in the region. I started fishing at the age of 15 with my father and today, I'm 72 years old. I'm going to be 73 soon and I still fish.

About ten years ago, I led a meeting on fisheries here, in Neguac, when the fishers union was created. I'm not a union guy, I'm not a member of the fishers union and I've never worked for a company where there was a union. When a union was set up, I'd just put my pack on my back and leave. I never believed in unions.

• 1845

That time, we were called in as fishers. At the meeting there were also fishers who were part of the union. We were about half and half, I think, but the government guys who came from Caraquet— and I knew one of them well enough—only talked to the union guys. Apparently, we had nothing to say. I got mad and I asked them if it was the union paying their salary or the government, because I was working for the government myself when I started fishing. At 18, I was part of a committee. As I just said, I'm 72 now and I still represent the federal and the provincial as I did all my life.

I didn't get any answer at the time, but I got in touch with our MP of the day who was Mr. Dionne, that I knew well enough. He was the member for Miramichi and with him, everything came back to normal. Everything worked well up to three or four years ago. Maybe Charlie can correct me on that.

When the government gave the authorization to fish snow crab, it gave everything to the union. I wasn't a member of the union, I never was and I never will be.

So my son who was fishing with me and who's here today went to see Mr. Frank McLaughlin who was the president of the union. He told him that he had to become a member of the union and pay the dues in arrears for two or three years to be able to put his name and go fish for crab.

That same night, I called Mr. Hubbard who told me how they saw things in Ottawa. It was quite different. The next day, feeling a bit more sure of myself, I went to see my fisher friends to share the information I got on the legislation. But when I arrived at the coast, everything had changed because Mr. Robichaud had interpreted things otherwise. I passed for a liar.

So I went to see Mr. Hubbard, I went to Tracadie and Shediac and spent a year and a half in court. I wanted to go to Shediac to see Mr. Robichaud. I called Shediac at least 25 times but I never managed to get him on the phone. So that morning my son and I decided to go there ourselves. We went there and we hid until they all came into the office just to make sure we had them all there. So then I walked into the office and I asked the secretary, whom I knew, if I could see Mr. Robichaud. He hesitated a little and I got a bit mad, and then he said yes.

The secretary went to tell Mr. Robichaud that I was asking to see him. As I was just outside, I overheard him very well when he answered he didn't want to see me. I knew him well. He didn't want to see me for the simple reason that he thought I didn't want to blame my MP, Mr. Hubbard, who had supposedly been lying to me, but that I wanted to blame him. So I never did manage to talk to him and I never got the opportunity either to go to a meeting where he was present. I don't actually miss very many but we just don't meet. Even if he's a senator, we'll surely meet one day because I don't miss very many meetings.

Getting back to the union, I'm saying there is no union. As a fisher, I can say that the union had me arrested three times and my friend too. And when the time came to go to court, I got a letter informing me that my trial had been set back a month. That was fine.

One month later, I got ready to go to court. I didn't have any lawyer because I didn't have enough money to pay for one. In any case, I didn't think I needed a lawyer because I knew what was going on with the government and I had enough papers.

• 1850

A month later, I got another phone call to tell me that my trial had been delayed another month. The third time, I didn't even get a call. That day, I told my friend we were going. We got to Newcastle, we went in into court and the secretary looked me straight in the eye and asked me what I was doing. I told her that I was going to court this morning. She told me it had been changed again and that the union should have advised me. So I asked her if there was a judge around and when she said yes I didn't ask for her permission to go talk to him. I walked into the room and I sat down next to him—a bit bold and mad at the same time—and I asked him how many times more he was going to play this trick on me, because this was the third time.

He told me: "Mr. Savoie, go back home you'll never hear about this case again". That was four years ago and I never heard about it again. I was a fisherman for over 55 years and I'm still a fisherman. I still share part of the boat with my son, but the union still doesn't acknowledge me. I can tell you that I accept the fact that there's a fishers' union and I'll never prevent anyone from being a member, but I don't accept the fact that they force us to become members and force us to pay.

For three years now, we have asked for a licence to fish crab. You have to be four fishermen together. And each one has to give $100 to Frank McLaughlin to get his name on the list. There are some who don't want to pay for the card because they are not members of the union and they don't want to be. Over half the fishers are not members of the union. I was sick over this, but apparently nothing can be done.

I hope the committee won't be giving us the same answer. As I said, I've been involved in politics for over 50 years. But to date, I can tell you that anyone fishing whether they were a member of the union or not got the same service. Today, you have to be a member of the union. What does that mean? As member of Parliament, Mr. Hubbard, and this goes for all the other members of Parliament too, don't forget that it's not the members of the union that send you to Ottawa and it's not the members of the union that's sending you to Fredericton. It's everybody together.

I hope this committee will be looking at this problem and will see to it that any fisher can get service as a fisher and not as a member of the union. And we have to put a stop to all this nonsense that means you have to pay people and give money to Frank McLaughlin to get you name on the list. Anyway, you can be sure our people will have problems getting out of the hole.

That's all I had to say, I've been carting that around for a long time and at my age, at death's door, I didn't want to die with all that left unsaid. Thank you very much.

[English]

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Sir, of course everything that's said here today is put in a book, every word. When the copies come out, we'll make sure the witnesses all get a copy of one. Everything that's said is put into booklet form, and as well it goes on the computer and is sent to Fisheries and Oceans and all the officials of government. Everybody in Fisheries and Oceans, all of the big shots, sit down and read through everything that's said before these committees. So you can not only have a copy for the rest of your days to pass on, but you also will be read by all of these people in positions of authority.

• 1855

I forgot to mention that at the beginning of the meeting. That's another benefit of appearing before a committee such as this in this setting.

But of course the most important thing, Clem, is we have to make a report to Parliament. We will be going over all of the testimony that was given as we travelled around. We'll try to incorporate as much as we can into recommendations to the House of Commons. That's perhaps the most important thing for possible changes in government policy. We'll be looking at the changes necessary to assist all fishermen and fish plant workers—what's wrong with the system, with the federal government, and with the federal government regulations.

As for the matter of time, I don't know how committee members want to handle this. I don't know how far we're behind, whether the planes have all gone, or what the situation is.

Mr. Hubbard, would you like to say a few words?

Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you could give each of us a minute and then give Mr. Hubbard his closing comments.

The Chairman: Mr. Lunn, an MP from British Columbia, is requesting time with the other members of Parliament.

Mr. Gary Lunn: One minute.

The Chairman: Okay. Let's go to MP Mr. Lunn and then to MP Bill Matthews, who's the critic for the Progressive Conservative Party.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you, Mr. Baker.

I'm just going to make a quick comment I want to put on the record. I've already posed my question to Ms. Milewski from the Conservation Council of New Brunswick. I was going to make the comment that after travelling for five or six days, it took a woman to tell us what we need to do.

I was quite impressed with all the witnesses. Mr. Savoie and Mr. Lebreton and everybody else we heard today all had very good points. Although Ms. Milewski from the Conservation Council of New Brunswick made an awful lot of very good points that I was very impressed with, the only other thing I've added, and I've also expressed it to her, is to consider the principle of adjacency. She has taken note of that.

In the interest of time, I'm not going to ask anyone any questions, but this was a very informative session, and we have appreciated all your comments.

The Chairman: Mr. Matthews.

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

I'll echo the remarks of Mr. Lunn. I wanted to say to Inka that of all the briefs and presentations we've received in the last three or four days, in my view there is certainly some very serious food for thought contained here. I just want to thank her for that and thank all the witnesses who appeared today.

The Chairman: Does the MP from the Northwest Territories wish to offer any comments? No?

Mr. Easter is the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He's the junior minister, and he's been listening.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I've been listening, and I'm near listened out. Go ahead by, pass me.

The Chairman: Yvan, maybe you can make a statement. There was a motion made by Mr. Lunn that we not go to Mr. Hubbard until all the other members have had a minute to say a little piece. Then we would allow Mr. Hubbard to speak. He's the boss here, but that's what I ruled. So would you like to make a statement?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I have a statement to make, but I thought we had the right to put more questions to some of our witnesses. So, you don't mind my using the time available to me to put questions to witnesses? Thank you.

First of all, I'd like to tell all the witnesses that I very much appreciated hearing such direct comments. I know that this is the good Gaspé way, a little abrupt at times. But I think that some things have to be said at some point.

I made a lot of notes. I don't know how the committee is going to manage to settle all this. I think we'll take the questions in order, one by one. There are also situations that sadden the heart and I wonder how we are going to settle all this.

• 1900

I must tell you this is one of the places where I have seen the most conflicts between the fishery groups and unions. I also think, Mr. Chairman—without trying to steer the report—that the federal government and in particular Fisheries and Oceans is in great part responsible for this situation. The attitude of Fisheries and Oceans on the management side leads to these groups fighting one another.

Earlier on in the day, I used the image of the father, but I think that Fisheries and Oceans is acting like a father who has just let his children adrift. At some point, the chickens come home to roost and you have to shoulder your responsibilities.

I could go over each and every one of the cases mentioned, Mr. Scott's or Mr. Lebreton's. In passing, Mr. Lebreton, I would like to point out that when I work at the Fisheries Committee I only talk about fishing and I don't put on my other hats. When I show up in some areas, people are afraid they'll hear me talking about other stuff than fishing. I listened to what Mr. Savoie had to say and I found that very interesting. When I say that I'll unravelling all the threads, I'll unravel them in my head first.

I made notes and I'd have a lot of questions for Mr. Jean Gauvin, but the Chairman is pushing me along. Maybe I could put a question and put another one to Mr. Alyre Gauvin after. It mainly has to do with TAGS.

Mr. Jean Gauvin, you followed everything we have been saying here today. I know that the negotiations you have undertaken for your people haven't been easy. The agreement you got this spring, is it valid only for one year or for three or five? I am not aware of all the details. It's over five years? Fine. So all the other questions I'd have on that seem more appropriate for the time being.

I'd now like to put a question to Mr. Alyre Gauvin and I don't know if he's here or if he's hearing me? Is he here?

[English]

The Chairman: He's in conference with the parliamentary secretary.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Oh, he's meeting with the Parliamentary Secretary.

My question is about TAGS. I apologize to the other witnesses, but I saw the examination of the fisheries problems as having three tiers. The first tier was the urgency of our meeting because of the end of TAGS in May, 1998. Secondly, I made notes on how to find out how we're going to reorganize the future of fisheries and how the sharing out and the management are going to be done. The third tier—I am happy we heard the socio-economic stakeholders—concerns those people who will be declared redundant in the fisheries. We're going to have to come up with ideas to find out what we can do with them. Maybe we'll recycle them if that's what we decide on .

I would have liked to know how the people on TAGS see their future after May, 1998. I know people are saying they're fed up with TAGS, but I'd like to remind them that it's not a real strategy and that's why the Auditor General slapped the federal government's wrist this spring.

There is no strategy. These are only passive measures. We're supporting the income of fishers and plant workers. It's all very nice to support individuals, but we have to get into the second phase, in other words: how are we going to get out of this situation, how are we going to reorient fisheries and what are we going to do with the others?

I'll make this my conclusion as the main person concerned is at another meeting. I thank all the witnesses here for coming.

[English]

The Chairman: I want to call on Mr. Hubbard, who is the very one who requested that the committee be here and consider all these presentations in the presentations that will be delivered to the House of Commons. Mr. Hubbard.

• 1905

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Speaking on behalf of all the people in the Miramichi, I want to thank the committee for coming to this area.

George has been a very active member of the House of Commons for some twenty-odd years and he's been involved with fisheries from his native province of Newfoundland and of course has been a great advocate of the need for a very sustainable, very viable, very effective and efficient fishery. George, I'm certain that everyone today appreciates your efforts.

In the past the fishery committee has sat in Ottawa and they've heard bureaucrats. George, as chairman, has said we have to go out to the regions, we have to go to the east coast, the west coast, and to the north coast to make sure we hear what's going on in the little wharves and the communities where the fishery is actually happening.

We have heard great testimony across Newfoundland, in Quebec, in New Brunswick today, and of course in Nova Scotia tomorrow and back to Newfoundland again on Monday and Tuesday. I think the press have left, and maybe it's better not to be quoted like this in the press, but certainly there are great problems within DFO. There's great mistrust among all the people who are involved with the fishery. It appears that we have a great number of very effective and very good people working in that organization, but somewhere among that group, and probably at the highest levels, we have a terrible organization.

Members of the committee, I want to thank you. We have a very non-partisan group in a sense because we have five parties working together. You probably have 10 or 15 in total on this committee who are some of the most outspoken critics of what's happening. I know that we will work together to get a good report written.

This may not make a lot of changes, but at least it will reflect the basic concerns you have as fisher people, and we'll present it not to the Liberal government or not to the Reform or the Conservatives but rather to the House of Commons. It will be tabled in the House for all members to read. Certainly when you give us your concerns those concerns have to be addressed by the people who are working in that great organization.

I think one of the basic messages we seem to hear is that we have to break down the fact that so much of that department is centred somewhere away from fisher people. The decisions being made are made so far away from the people who are involved in the industry and the lines of communication are so great that unless something happens we're going to have an industry in great difficulty.

I think, George, that is the message again.

We want to thank the Legion for their efforts today in making this meeting possible. We want to thank all of you who came. And Clem, I still have this loaf of bread that will be offered to you when you're put behind the two steel bars if that is the decision. We certainly have worked and tried to do our best with that.

Mr. Clément Savoie: The thing is I wasn't going to go behind the bars.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: We know that many are frustrated, but hopefully you can work together to make this a good and viable fishery.

Thank you, George.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.

On the point of the bars, you were wrong, the press are still here. I noticed The Telegraph was taking notes frantically when you were talking about DFO, so you may see it in print tomorrow.

The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.