FISH Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 19, 1998

• 1532

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.)): I call the committee meeting to order.

We want to welcome first of all Mr. Larry Murray, the new Associate Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. We want to thank you, sir, for accepting our invitation to come before the committee today to answer some questions concerning your recent appointment and your new role as Associate Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

We also want to thank the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for accepting our invitation to appear here today to answer questions from committee members. Committee members, I believe on both sides, want to ask questions of both the gentlemen appearing here today.

I want to ask the minister, first of all, whether he has a few opening remarks to make, and to ask the Associate Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans whether he has some introductory remarks he would like to make, following which we will ask questions.

Minister.

The Honourable David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to appear again before the committee, which I regard as an important component of our system of management and control of Canadian fisheries and oceans sectors.

I appeared before you last November and I discussed some long-term priorities I have for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Some of the issues members raised were addressed at that time.

As you know, last month I addressed you again at Steveston, where there was no opportunity for questioning, although I did provide a progress report on some aspects of my department's major revitalization initiatives.

The message I had in November and January and indeed the message since my appointment in June 1997 has been the same: conservation has to be the number one priority. That is a priority I have set down for all my officials at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

I'm delighted that you will have the opportunity today to hear from one of our recently appointed members of the department, the associate deputy minister, Larry Murray.

First, a quick word about the department.

[Translation]

The Fishery is a complex industry that exists in a very competitive market place. And as everybody knows now, the fish supply is always somewhat limited. It is an industry that is necessarily governed by rules and regulations. But the international agreements are also very important.

• 1535

It's no secret that many fishermen in the industry are experiencing very serious problems.

Conservation is our paramount concern. It is true not only of areas that have experienced stock problems, but also for the other areas of the industry which have not yet experienced such problems. Such concern is even more essential in the latter since they have to learn the lessons we have learned in the former.

[English]

One of the issues that has been a great concern to members here is foreign fishing. My officials appeared before you last week with a very comprehensive briefing, which I hope has addressed your concerns and provided you with the facts. I have a few extra copies of that brief from the deck that was printed last week, because I know some of you were unable to be here and some who attended the first part of the morning session were unable to attend the second part of the morning session.

You've had a briefing on that, but let me stress two points. We've had a dramatic drop in fishing by foreign vessels in Canadian waters over the years. Catches from quotas allocated to foreign fleets in Canadian waters have dropped from an average of 350,000 tonnes in the late 1970s and early 1980s to less than 2,000 tonnes in recent years. In percentage terms this is approximately 0.5% to 1% of what it used to be.

A good question is why are these foreign vessels fishing within our 200-mile zone today. We provide foreign allocations inside 200 miles for a few stocks that are surplus to Canadian harvesting needs. These allocations are given to countries that have bilateral fishing agreements and abide by our conservation objectives inside and outside the 200-mile limit. Therefore, in this sense foreign allocations do not take away fish from Canadian fishermen. In fact Canadians still leave large parts of certain quotas in the water each year—for example, silver hake and squid.

Since the early 1990s, Canada has allowed some Canadian quota holders to charter foreign vessels in two Atlantic fisheries, namely sub-area zero turbot, which is right up in the north between Baffin Island and Greenland, and on the Scotian Shelf for silver hake. At those fisheries, foreign charters provide jobs for Canadian plant workers and new markets for Canadian companies. Over the years, revenues from joint ventures have been reinvested to obtain a greater Canadianization of these fisheries.

In effect, foreign charters have been essential in the development of new fishing opportunities for Canadians, and we're hopeful this will create a demand for the products, which will lead to better prices and investment by fishers to catch more of the Canadian quota.

On the Pacific coast, designated foreign fleets are licensed to buy Pacific hake directly from fishers at sea. This provides opportunities for Canadians to sell their fish when Canadian processors do not have the capacity to purchase all their catch. I should also add that only recently I was in Port Alberni, where we have made a major federal investment in a plant—a most unusual thing—so we can increase the processing capacity of Canadian plants so more hake can be landed, turned into surimi and then exported to Korea in that particular instance. So we are trying hard to develop the opportunities.

If I can just give a personal observation, some 25 years ago, when I was aboard some fishing boats on the banks of Vancouver Island, we used to simply throw hake away. The volume of hake we picked up in salmon fishing was greater than the volume of salmon. Talk about waste. Talk about by-catch. We're changing that.

Foreign access in this and other areas requires the cooperation of other parties, and I refer specifically to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, and other international fisheries issues of importance to Canada. Foreign vessels fishing in Canadian waters are very carefully monitored. They must be licensed and must carry Canadian observers at their own expense.

Some say this fish should be allocated to Canadians. This argument overlooks one fact. Canadians have the first right of refusal to all fish in Canadian waters—all stocks that are harvestable. And extensive consultations are held with the industry and the provinces before any decision is made on foreign allocations.

• 1540

Furthermore, the 200-mile nautical zone must be understood in the context of foreign fishing overall. The 200-mile zone was established only because of an international consensus reached during the negotiations at the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in the 1970s. As part of the balancing between rights and duties, coastal states obtained sovereign rights for the purposes of exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing the living resources within the 200-mile zone. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is now in force.

We had to reinforce our claim to 200 miles in 1977 and to gain support for Canadian initiatives to conserve stocks that straddle our 200-mile zone on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. To do so we signed bilateral fisheries agreements with all of the countries that had traditionally fished in what is now our 200-mile zone. These agreements restated Canada's obligation to provide access to fish surplus to our harvesting capacity, but they did so with the understanding that our bilateral partners would follow Canadian laws and regulations, and most important, that they would cooperate with Canada through international fisheries management organizations on the conservation and management of straddling stocks, salmon, and other highly migratory species.

By demonstrating our commitment to international law and by providing access to fish stocks that Canadians choose not to fish inside our zone, Canada was able to obtain the support of all of those countries to put in place international measures to manage straddling stocks more effectively. Parties that do not cooperate with Canada have been denied access to our waters.

I'd like to be clear, Mr. Chairman. If we were to scrap our international obligations, Canadian fishermen and Canadian fish stocks would suffer. If we were to refuse to fulfil our international obligations, Canada would lose levers we now have to influence decisions to protect straddling stocks and highly migratory species, such as tuna and swordfish, that spend part of their life cycle vulnerable to potential overfishing on the high seas. Think what that would do to those southern Nova Scotia fishing ports that depend so much on those pelagic species. Think of the millions of dollars we would lose on those species if we scrapped our international obligations.

Let me take a moment to discuss the issue, which has been much in the news, of observer reports. As you know, I have offered to provide the observer reports for in camera review by all the members here. I would urge you to take advantage of that offer.

Finally, on my overall responsibilities as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, as a minister, I am responsible to you ladies and gentlemen, who are members of Parliament. I am accountable for all decisions implemented by my department, and I take that responsibility seriously. That is why I'm here today and why I've been here three times in the last four months.

My officials provide me with their advice, their assessment, and their judgment. They are a very dedicated and hardworking group of people who are often faced with extremely difficult issues that affect people's livelihoods. They take their responsibilities seriously, and they are accountable for the information and advice they provide. In our parliamentary system, their accountability is to me, the minister.

Ministers in turn are accountable to you, the members of Parliament. Whether the issue is science, foreign fishing, or any of the myriad issues in my department, I take my responsibilities to Parliament seriously, as you will have noticed in debates that take place in the House and in question period. I believe it does a disservice to the parliamentary system when such accountability is misrepresented or devalued. Parliament is supreme.

I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

It is now my pleasure to introduce Larry Murray, who brings to his post extensive senior administrative experience as well as firsthand knowledge of the sea and seafaring. I regard myself, as minister, extremely fortunate to have Larry Murray as the associate deputy minister. Larry.

Mr. Larry Murray (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada): Thank you very much, Minister.

• 1545

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity early in my time as Associate Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to meet this committee. I have provided you and your colleagues with a brief résumé of my career, but thought it might be useful to amplify aspects of my experience, particularly in relation to its relevance to my current appointment.

As you can see from my biography, my early years in the navy were spent at sea in a variety of ships on both coasts. I specialized as a navigation officer and served at sea in that capacity in an east coast frigate and a 24,000-tonne west coast fleet replenishment tanker. As a specialist navigator, I learned a good deal about meteorology, vessel traffic management systems, aids to navigation, hydrography, and to some extent oceanography. I also instructed navigation, including blind pilotage at sea and at shore on both coasts. The trainees occasionally included coast guard officers.

In terms of sea-going command experience, I commanded three ships, as well as a four-ship division of coastal patrol vessels and a ten-ship destroyer squadron, again with service in both the Atlantic and Pacific.

As is the case with most naval officers of my generation, I was involved in fishery patrol operations on a number of occasions in various capacities, ranging from doing actual boardings with DFO enforcement officers to commanding a warship conducting dedicated fisheries patrols. I was also involved in a number of search and rescue operations on both coasts, including the successful rescue of all 21 crew members of the bulk freighter Ho Ming Number 5 in a gale south of Newfoundland in 1983 while I was commanding officer of Iroquois. Eighteen members of my ship's company, an air detachment, received various awards for that rescue, including six stars of courage, six medals of bravery. Iroquois herself received the Canadian Forces unit commendation.

[Translation]

As Commander of a destroyer squadron, I headed several missions, including a number of surveillance, search and rescue missions at the national and international level.

I also think that a great deal of the experience I acquired at shore in Halifax and Ottawa is related to the position I now hold.

[English]

As director general of maritime doctrine and operations I spent five months in 1990 as the DND member on an interdepartmental task force headed by Gordon Osbaldeston, a former clerk of the Privy Council, studying the utilization of the federal government's marine fleets. I was subsequently heavily involved in implementing the recommendations of the Osbaldeston study within DND in cooperation with other government departments, recommendations which led to enhanced utilization and much more effective coordinated operations at sea between and among naval, coast guard, DFO and RCMP ships.

[Translation]

As Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Communications, at National Defence Headquarters, I worked in close cooperation with the National Secretariat of Search and Rescue Operations and I was a member of the Interdepartmental Committee on Search and Rescue.

When I was Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, I was accountable to the Chief of the Defence Staff for the Canadian Forces activities at home and abroad. Once again, that work had at times a component of search and rescue work and asked for a close cooperation with other departments, especially concerning drogue control activities in support of the RCMP.

[English]

As commander of maritime command based in Halifax, I was again involved in a number of search and rescue and other operations in support of other government departments. I commanded the navy during the turbot dispute with Spain, working very closely with DFO and other involved government departments throughout that crisis.

[Translation]

As Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, I took an active part in the intense restructuring of the Department of National Defence and of the Canadian Forces after the program review. The challenge, which aimed at reducing expenses and personnel simultaneously, while meeting requirements of greater efficiency and profitability and at the same time maintaining the operational capacity, the morale of the staff and the organizational cohesion, is fairly similar to the challenge I am facing at Fisheries and Oceans. I think that my experience in that regard will be very useful within Fisheries and Oceans.

• 1550

I headed missions of the Canadian Armed Forces abroad, including in Haiti, in Central Africa and in Bosnia, as well as missions at home, including during the Manitoba flood. Our interventions in Manitoba were conducted in close cooperation with other departments such as Fisheries and Oceans and with the provincial authorities. Together with Deputy Minister Louise Fréchette, I also supported former Minister Young in his efforts to reform training, education, the military justice, the management structure and the public communications within the Canadian Forces, a project once again similar to the constant efforts being made by Minister Anderson and Deputy Minister Wayne Wouters within Fisheries and Oceans.

[English]

DFO is Canada's ocean department, and I am extremely proud and pleased to be part of the highly professional and diverse team of very dedicated men and women who comprise it. I believe that I can make a useful contribution and certainly intend to do my very best to try to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Murray and Mr. Minister.

We'll go to questions. I'd like to ask one general question to Mr. Murray before we start the questions. It arises out of a comment you made, Mr. Murray, concerning your involvement in the turbot dispute off the east coast of Canada.

As you know, Mr. Murray, this committee has been looking at foreign fishing vessels fishing off the east coast of Canada, and particularly the fishing that takes place on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. You're aware of where that is.

During that dispute, when you were directly involved with the navy in the arrest of the Estai at that time, the question was fish that move from inside 200 miles to outside 200 miles. I think the figure was nine out of ten groundfish at a certain moment of the year go outside to that nose and tail. So that was why it was so important for us to have a good regime outside the 200-mile zone.

As I understand it, you've been in this job now for three and a half months. The Government of Canada is preparing to pass a bill in the House called Bill C-27. I want to ask you whether you're aware of that bill, what's in the bill, and what you see as your role and the role of the Government of Canada in stopping or trying to stop the fishing, not just of the NAFO nations who are part of the agreement, but also other nations, of course, which will be covered under this legislation, I think.

We have not received a briefing on the legislation. We've been offered a briefing, but we haven't had time to do it at this point. So could you give us your opinion on Bill C-27, if in fact you have received a briefing on it. I imagine you would know what's in it. As far as you see it, how would that relate to your knowledge of boarding foreign vessels, and how would it address our problem that we have with overfishing on those areas that are outside the 200-mile zone? Do you know about Bill C-27?

Mr. Larry Murray: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. It was in fact just moving forward as I arrived in the department.

I would say that the bill is, in my view, probably one of the most positive results of the turbot dispute with Spain, because I believe that the turbot dispute with Spain brought the urgency of that sort of international agreement to the fore in the minds of many other nations. Canada had been pushing for some kind of an international agreement to deal with straddling stocks, I think, for 20 years. However, I think that bill gained tremendous momentum and support falling out of the turbot dispute with Spain.

I think its official title is the United Nations Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. It's really intended to provide a variety of things: a precautionary approach to the establishment of fishing levels; more transparent operations of vessels on the high seas; enhanced enforcement and controls on high-seas fishing; and also an agreed mechanism to settle disputes.

• 1555

As I understand its current status, I believe there need to be 30 nations to ratify it in order for it to become international law. I understand 15 nations have currently ratified it. I believe it's in second reading here in Canada.

The Chairman: Almost.

Mr. Larry Murray: Almost second reading, Mr. Chairman.

I think it's very important that Canada does ratify it, because Canada has been at the forefront of this particular legislation and the need for it for some time.

In terms of the second part of your question, the role of our department and indeed the role of Canada, one reason I would say it's extremely important, as the minister alluded to, that Canada ratify this particular legislation, that we abide by our international agreement, is because the most important influence we can have is by our example abroad of respect, of emphasizing conservation of our own fisheries and indeed beyond the fishery, and those in terms of straddling stocks, and so on.

First and foremost, we must set a good example. And then, in my view, we must ensure that we know what's going on. In other words, I would say science has never been more important than it is now, and it's not an easy subject. I don't pretend to be an expert in fishery science, but I have learned enough from the last three months to realize that there's a whole lot more that I have to learn.

I would say, as in all things, at the end of the day it's also extremely important to have a demonstrated presence, and the fact that we will keep track of what's happening in our areas of responsibility. With this legislation, our areas of responsibility really go beyond, and therefore the need for aerial surveillance, for patrol vessels, for fairly regular boardings so that folks do understand that whilst we do set a high standard ourselves, whilst we do abide by that standard, whilst we do try to understand what's happening, we also believe the laws we've agreed to must be respected by others.

The Chairman: Is there anything you want to add to that?

Mr. Larry Murray: I don't think so, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

The Chairman: In other words, you'll be able to board vessels, perhaps non-flag states and so on, that you would not now be able to board.

Mr. Larry Murray: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We had been able to do that in the 1970s, but it was on a voluntary basis. Once nations ratify this, in fact it will be as compulsory as boarding within our 200-mile limit by Canadians or by other signatory nations. So I think it's an extremely important step, together with others that are happening as recently as in a conference last week.

The Chairman: Have you enough resources to do that, to carry out that new bill that's coming in?

Mr. Larry Murray: I believe so. Certainly within the context of the overall resources of the Government of Canada, I believe we do. Certainly part of the effort that Minister Anderson has directed is that in our own version of restructuring reform and so on, we do everything we can to ensure we focus the resources we get from the taxpayers to where they make a difference. In that context, certainly that includes fisheries enforcement, search and rescue, that sort of thing, aerial surveillance, and we're looking at all that right now. Indeed we're doing quite a detailed review of our concepts of operations and what sort of aerial surveillance we actually need.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Murray. Now we'll go to questions. We may find, Mr. Murray, that a lot of the questions will go to the minister, as well as yourself, so don't feel left out of this process.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to address my question to the minister.

You said in your presentation, talking about the observer trip reports, where the committee and yourself have an obvious difference, that the committee was doing a disservice to our parliamentary system in this regard. I would like to reverse that, and say that you, in my opinion, are doing a disservice to the parliamentary system by not acceding to our request.

• 1600

I've done some research on this front, and I just want to enter it into the record. We have a document produced in 1994 by parliamentary legislative services, which talks about the powers of parliamentary committees. In that report it states that parliamentary committees have the authority to compel “any person, papers, and records” as witnesses before the committee.

This whole circumstance has been viewed before, and as a matter of fact it's ended up in the courts before. The minister has cited section 20 of the Access to Information Act as the reason why you're not releasing those reports. You've taken it upon yourself to say they are confidential information.

I submit it's not within your discretion to do so, and I can quote the case of Intercontinental Packers Ltd. v. Canada, Minister of Agriculture, 1987. The judge said, in an application under that act, meaning the Freedom of Information Act, that “the party seeking to establish the opposite of that purpose”—in other words, releasing the information—“should bear the burden of proof”. In other words, if the owners of the foreign vessels assert that the reports contain confidential information or trade secrets, it's up to them to prove this.

Further to that, the justice stated that “...reports are produced by public authorities spending public funds in order to protect the public. They must therefore be presumed to contain public information.” Now this criterion would apply to the observer reports that are produced, because the Government of Canada passed legislation that requires them and DFO pays for their reports. Although the foreign vessels contribute financially, it's only because they're compelled to do so by the department. And because the department collects the information, by extension it must be important to the Canadian people.

In a further case, Canada Packers v. Canada, 1989, Justice MacGuigan said: “Any exceptions to disclosure under Freedom of Information should be proven by the person asserting them”. He also stated that there were remedies available to the applicant at common law if the disclosure of information harmed it.

So to sum this up, I believe it's clear that a report should be released to the committee to do with as it will. And if foreign parties, foreign vessels, the interested parties, think they may be harmed by these reports, it's up to them to request that the reports remain confidential. It's not up to the minister to make that determination from the beginning.

So I'm going to very strongly recommend to this committee that they repeat their request for the observer reports in their entirety, and I disagree with your presumption entirely.

I would like to table this submission with the committee, Mr. Chair, and I will also table the parliamentary study that I alluded to in that report.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Chair, before the minister answers this—

The Chairman: Mr. Lunn, you have a point of order?

Mr. Gary Lunn: Just before the minister answers this question—

The Chairman: The minister hasn't been asked a question, Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Okay.

The Chairman: For the minister's comment—is that what you're saying?

Mr. Gary Lunn: Yes. I'm going to add something on the same topic, and it may—

The Chairman: This is going to have to come out of Mr. Duncan's time. Is that okay?

Mr. John Duncan: That's okay.

The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Minister, I'm pleased to hear you say that your number one priority is conservation, because every single member of this committee has expressed that to me at one time or another. And it's very nice of you to offer these observer reports in camera, but I want to emphasize that we're here representing the people and the fishermen, and they have the right to this information.

• 1605

Following up on Mr. Duncan's comments, I have done my own analysis and I have spoken with other lawyers in Vancouver, colleagues of mine, who are familiar with this section of the act. And you are hiding—and I'll use the word “hiding”—behind section 20. But if you go on and you look at subsection (6), it says that the minister may—and I emphasize the word “may”, which is a discretionary word—if it's in the public interest, and it's clear that this issue is no doubt in the public interest.... It goes on to state that if it could possibly provide harm to the environment you can disclose this information under the subsection you're hiding under.

As you know, I've asked you this in question period. And you continue, as you have today, to offer this in camera session, which is absolutely useless to us. I want to emphasize that we want these reports in the name of conservation; that's what this is all about.

So I would ask you, before you even answer this issue, and it's a huge issue, that you're on the record right now for saying, mistakenly or with your facts wrong, in a quote in the Evening Telegram—and you're aware of it—that at Black Tickle there are no foreign vessels allowed to fish off Black Tickle, and clearly there were. It was acknowledged by your own department. I believe you're aware of those quotes. If not, I'd be happy to provide them to you. But I'd ask you before you answer this to seriously go back to subsection (6) of this act. I'm happy to provide a copy of it to you. I'm sure you have it. It will take me less than 30 seconds here to read it.

The Chairman: That's about what you have left, Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: This is very important, Mr. Chairman.

The head of a government institution may disclose any record

—and I emphasize the word “may”—

requested under this Act, or any part thereof, that contains information described in paragraph (1)(b), (c) or (d)

—and you're under I believe section 1(b), which applies—

if that disclosure would be in the public interest as it relates to public health, public safety or protection of the environment and...

It's clear that these foreign vessels are damaging our habitat—not only the habitat the fish live in, but the resource.

So I'd ask you to seriously go back and look at this and provide me a response with respect to why you cannot disclose this. We are doing this in the public interest—not in my interest, not in the chairman's interest, but in the public interest, in the name of conservation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman

The Chairman: That's the full time.

Minister, do you want to comment on those comments?

Mr. David Anderson: Yes, briefly.

I have had Mr. Duncan provide certain interpretations of the law to me. As he is aware, other interpretations, which as you know, Mr. Chairman, stretch back 20 years, have been contrary to that position.

I would be quite happy to provide this information to you. However, I must respect Parliament too. If Parliament makes a law, I must obey it. When I'm acting as minister and the legal officers of my department say it would breach the laws made by the members of Parliament, it is not the job of the Minister of Fisheries to say the members of Parliament don't know what they're doing, so I should break the law. That's not my role. That would be quite improper for a member of Parliament and a minister to do that, and you'd be properly critical if I proceeded when I'd had clear legal advice that suggested to me that to do what you've asked me to do would break the law.

This is not in contempt of the committee in any way, shape, or form. The committee may well have other powers that may well be sorted out. But no one has come before me to say that this section 20 of the Access to Information Act can be superseded at my discretion, which is what you're asking me to do. So I would leave the point there.

I would add to Mr. Lunn that I have provided you the opportunity of having these reports in camera. I have also provided the aggregate of all these reports, the total information upon which you can judge the impact of fishing. No, you do not have at the present time, although you can have it in private, the individual report of an individual inspector on a particular vessel for a particular trip. But you have all the information gathered together, and this has been made public.

I would remind Mr. Lunn that when he talks about questions in the House I have his question here:

Mr. Speaker, hundreds of foreign trawlers, better known as floating fish plants, licensed by this government, continue to fish in Canadian waters.

That is not so, Mr. Lunn. You have to recognize that following the meeting you attended the first half of, an explanation was given by Earl Wiseman, of my department.

• 1610

We do have fishermen who are in international waters. In fact the latest count, which is about a month ago—I don't have more accurate figures—was seven ships. That's half of what we had last year. These are six European Union ships, one Japanese.

Admiral Murray has talked about the importance, as has the chairman, of a piece of legislation where we must get fifteen signatures before it's ratified. I point out to you, Mr. Lunn, that if we don't recognize that there are six European nation ships out there and there are fifteen members of the European Union, it's pretty clear that we could proceed and forget this information. We would lose the information from observers that we have now, because we would no longer have observers out there on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, specifically referred to by the chairman as areas of concern. All vessels there carry observers and that NAFO organization that we have there has the strongest enforcement regime of any international fisheries organization in the world.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We'll now go to Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): I want to thank my Reform colleague for allowing me to have the floor now for, due to a schedule change that I have just been made aware off, I have to go in five minutes to catch a plane.

I have two short questions for the minister and I hope that he will be able to answer very briefly too. I want to change subject, Minister, because you emphasized in your speech that you were in favour of conservation. That's good.

However, I would like to remind you that sooner or later, somebody in the government will have to take responsibility for giving some assurance to the public, specifically to the plant workers and fishermen.

I do not want to set a trap for you, but according to some private information I got, there won't be any mention of TAGS in Mr. Martin's budget. Even if we run the risk of speculating on Mr. Martin's budget, I would like you to tell us if a political decision has been made concerning The Atlantic Ground Fish Strategy. If not, when will it be made, since the program is supposed to end in August 1998? This is my first question.

[English]

The Chairman: Do you have a second question after this?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Alright. I can ask it right away. Here is my second question, Minister.

After a Conservative opposition day in the House, last fall, when we were discussing the national fisheries policy, I asked you if you agreed that one of the reason why The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy did not work and why we only resorted to passive measures, was that a very important partner was missing, namely the provinces.

Still in the context of establishing a real strategy for fisheries, do you have an agenda or a work schedule which will enable you to meet in the early Spring with your counterparts from the Atlantic Provinces?

If I start gathering my papers while listening to you, it's not that I do not like you, but I do have to leave. Rest assured that I will reread all your answers to my questions. Thank you, Minister.

Mr. David Anderson: Thank you very much, Mr. Bernier. With your first question, you put your finger on a very important problem, namely the plant workers and fishermen. Yes, I hope that you will see something in this regard in Mr. Martin's budget. I cannot give you everything that is in the budget, but I too wish there will be something in this regard, but we will see.

We have to wait and we only have five days left before Mr. Martin's budget. However, in his budget, Mr. Martin will certainly not give all the details concerning a program that might be put into place in August, as you were saying.

We received the Harrigan report. This is problem that pertains to minister Pettigrew since most of the people who have problems because they do not have a sufficient income, are plant workers who work at shore. As for me, I am responsible for the fishermen, those who work on the other side, at sea. I already talked to him and we hope to have several more meetings in the next weeks since, as you know, the Harrigan report has just come out. I do hope that we will be able to put into place the necessary programs before August, both for the fishermen and the licence withdrawal, and that we will not only be talking about an increase of income, but also about solutions to solve the problems related to fisheries.

• 1615

To answer your second question, I met my counterpart from Quebec a month ago, during the ice storm crisis. We talked about several things. But I do think that those discussions were very positive. We of course talked about what the minister is doing for the Quebec problem and the black triangle, because there was a lot of very important things in this regard.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: And for the new program for streamlining the Atlantic fisheries, do you have a work agenda that says that you will be meeting with your counterparts on the matter in the Spring?

Mr. David Anderson: Yes. I met with all the Atlantic provinces ministers, including the Quebec minister. Moreover, I met face to face with the latter less than a month ago. I also met with all the Fisheries ministers of Canada, including of course the Quebec minister. I think that was at the end of September last year. So I met three times with the Quebec minister.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Is a meeting scheduled for the Spring?

Mr. David Anderson: I do hope that we will have other meetings. I am always ready to meet with the Quebec minister as long as he wants to see me. I think that the next meeting I have on my agenda is in May, but I hope I will have the opportunity to meet him before that.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I must apologize. I must catch a plane. I hope I will be able to meet again with the minister soon and that we will both have more time. So long!

Mr. David Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Bernier.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Thank you.

Good afternoon, Admiral Murray and of course Mr. Minister. We're glad to have you here this afternoon to share some of your thoughts.

The mention was made in here that we have reduced the fishing and the take of fish to some pretty significant levels, when we look at where we were back in the 1970s. We're down to very low percentages today.

If we continue the course that we're on now and the take that we're on, if nothing changes, can you see the stock coming back in all the species? Do you feel all the species are protected? If we did nothing more than simply follow the course we're on today, if the information we're given is correct and the takes are correct, would we see a fishery coming back to the numbers we knew 25 years ago?

Nature has a way of doing this. We have Lake Erie in Ontario, where at one point there were basically no living species. Today we have a very healthy fish stock in that lake. If we were to change nothing, do you see that coming back to those levels?

Mr. David Anderson: I have to say that the latest information we have on groundfish stocks, cod stocks, is discouraging. In some areas we have only a fraction of what we had when the moratorium was put in place. In some areas the increase in biomass that is recorded is simply because the older fish have grown bigger; there is no recruitment of younger fish to that population.

I can provide and will provide this committee with all that information, but I have to say no, there is no automatic recovery, as some people thought four or five years ago and indeed as some people still believe today.

Another species, if I quickly could mention it, is Atlantic salmon. Atlantic salmon in the preceding cycle year went out to sea in really substantial numbers. Good numbers of smolts went out to sea. And some of these went of course from constituencies of members around this table.

For reasons we do not understand—nobody can give a clear picture—the numbers that have returned to Canada were approximately one-third to 40% of what we expected, and in some rivers less than that. In rivers only 10 kilometres apart, some would have quite a substantial return, and others would have a dismal return.

Obviously ocean conditions have affected salmon dramatically. We know there are dramatic ocean condition changes taking place, both in the Pacific and in the Atlantic, and of course in the connecting ocean of the Arctic.

We cannot provide you, Mr. Member, with the assurance that simply ceasing to fish will mean a stock will recover. There are very many factors involved. I only wish I could be more optimistic in general.

Certainly we're taking the measures we feel are necessary and essential, but nature plays a major role in ocean conditions and we play a very small role in ocean conditions, other than, unfortunately, pollution, a negative role.

• 1620

Mr. Paul Steckle: I think the perception is that while we watch, other people are fishing. Even if that is a proper view of what is taking place, I think one of the things you had mentioned is that the first right of refusal is there for fishermen.

In all cases, do the fishermen simply not have the capacity to process? Is it a case of us not having the equipment? Why have we no market for these species? What is the reason that we still see fishing vessels in our waters, given that this is the information that we're given? If we have exercised the first right of refusal, why is it that we have people wishing to go fishing when in fact they're not? Try to explain that dimension to us. I think there are probably some of us from central Canada who don't understand that.

Mr. David Anderson: In addition to the measures you very correctly put forward, there is also the one about economic viability. Certain species are much less profitable. Therefore different countries with different cost factors to their fleets might be able to fish a stock that Canadians would find uneconomical to fish. That is another factor I would add to the list that you've put forward, Mr. Member.

I think it also should be recognized that sometimes it is a question of market as well. Where are the established markets? In Atlantic Canada, we do a lot of processing of fish that comes from the Bering Sea and is fished by Russian vessels. In fact, we import a fair amount of raw material for our fish processing plants. It's very much an international business, and the differences in cost factors between fleets are therefore fully understandable.

But this is always offered to the Canadian fishermen first. Only when they refuse would it go to someone else, only then in accordance with international law, and only then if they put observers onboard. Of course, if it is fished by foreign fishermen, we try to maximize the return to Canadian ports so that the processing is maximized, foreseeing the terms of jobs for Canadians.

Mr. Paul Steckle: If I may just ask one further question, this has to do with the other view that's held: while the fish populations have been depleted, the seal population has increased. Given that there is a market for seal products, for this species, what are we doing to enhance the growth of that industry? Is the government prepared—are you as minister prepared—to see that industry grow? Are you prepared to encourage its growth? Given that the species is there—at least we understand that it is—would it not make a lot of sense for us to utilize this species? What are we prepared to do in that area?

Mr. Larry Murray: I can start if you wish, Minister.

At the moment, Mr. Chairman, I think the amount of seal harvesting that has been going on is very definitely tied to scientific information. In other words, it was kept at the same level this past year. It's around 275,000 for harp seals, and it went up from 8,000 to 10,000 for hooded seals this year. It's very definitely tied into the scientific advice that the minister is receiving in terms of the overall seal population and the sustainable level of that particular population.

In my opinion, quite frankly I think the other reality is whether or not market forces are at play in terms of what Canada does. At what point do we do harm to changes that might be happening in that market over time—in other words, as scientific evidence unfolds in greater detail, for example?

I believe there was a recent east-coast conference looking at the impact of seals on cod. That conference did indicate that perhaps seals are having more of an impact. Indeed, that's being pursued with great energy. If that were to unfold in terms of the market forces and given other opposing organizations, I think one would still have to use care in how to progress that market so that a market that is getting under way slowly continues to progress.

I think the government is continuing to fund at a certain rate for the next few years in order to offset some of the market that the sealing industry isn't getting. As for what the long-term prospects are, though, the minister is probably in a better position than I am to comment.

• 1625

Mr. David Anderson: We support the seal hunt fully. It's a legitimate harvest of a marine resource. It's important to the coastal communities and Inuit of northern Canada. We will continue to support the harvest, provided it is done in a responsible manner, with minimum cruelty, with the maximum utilization of the animal, and within the scientific limits to protect the population of the stock.

We have provided subsidies to the sealing industry. The height of that was $1.7 million a couple of years ago. That's declining now. I think it's $500,000 this year, and it will be $250,000 next year. It will finally go to zero.

The reason we're able to reduce the subsidy to the industry in their search for new markets is in fact that seals are turning out to be a good product internationally. I don't want to wax as eloquent as my good friend John Efford about the importance of seal oil to his arthritis, but there are many products that the seal provides that do in fact find a good market.

By providing a subsidy at the beginning and making it clear to them that we would reduce that subsidy over time, the industry has acted responsibly. It searched out new markets that are absolutely good ones. They're able to provide a decent financial contribution to the economy of Atlantic Canada as well as, of course, northern Canada.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you. We go now to the New Democratic Party. Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Minister.

Admiral Murray, for my own clarification, is it still “Admiral” when you're out of the military, or is it “Mr.” now? I'm having that debate with Mr. Mifflin as well.

Mr. Larry Murray: That's actually the choice of the individual, and I chose to be Mr. Murray.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay, very good. I really appreciate you, sir, as the chair said, coming here today with the minister.

I have a couple of slight things to ask the minister first.

Sir, you said it very truly that we don't know what's going on out there. For the average Canadian person out there, after 30 years of management of our resource, that's a sad assessment to make. I'm not blaming anyone per se. It's possibly the reality of the complexity of the industry. But the average Canadian individual whose tax dollars go into the DFO gets an answer that says we just don't know. That's a sad assessment to make. I'm not laying blame on anyone per se, it's just their perception of it.

Mr. Minister, you mentioned the fact in your report you gave us that:

These allocations are given to countries that have bilateral fisheries agreements and abide by our conservation objectives inside and outside 200-mile limits.

That's nice to say, but unless you're able to provide observer reports to the public.... The public's tax dollars fund the DFO. These are tax dollars of $3.4 billion that are going for the mismanagement of the DFO, and to the collapse of the stocks of NCARP and TAGS. I don't think the Canadian public—this is me probably sounding like a Reformer now—is able to stomach any more subsidies for the tragedies of what the public perceives as mismanagement.

Mr. Minister, you are quoted by Michael Harris in an article in The Ottawa Sun. I'll state your quote exactly:

My belief is...we want fishermen to make a decent living to make sure their families have what they need. In other words, they're in the mainstream band of income. You don't want a fishery where you have total winners and total losers. Or a fishery which is a social fishery, which is just a door to subsistence or the dole.

That's great to say that, but we were just on the west coast, and we heard a gentleman, I believe his name was Mr. Wright, of the Oak Bay Marine Group, which has some kind of a protection zone around Langara Island. If what you said here is correct, then I'm wondering how commercial fisheries from Prince Rupert—Paddy Greene for one, and all the others—that used to fish off Langara Island are no longer allowed to go near that island.

We used to have a 12-mile zone around Canada. I don't know how an individual, group, or business gets a 12-mile exclusion zone around an island for a sport lodge and fishing. I'll let you answer that a little later on.

Mr. Murray, as you know, I've been the one who's very adamant about a judicial inquiry into the DFO, its practices and policies, etc. I know that may make you a little nervous, but it was a pleasure to hear you say that science is very important. One thing that would really make me very happy, along with all the scientists I've spoken to, is for you to allow scientists to freely speak out when they feel that their information is being misrepresented. If you can do that, I'd buy you a case of beer: Keith's, possibly, or Moosehead.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

• 1630

Mr. Peter Stoffer: As you know, I find the timing of your appointment very ironic. I certainly say this with all due respect. You are obviously going to be given your due in terms of learning the industry, because it's extremely complex. The minister beside you has been involved in the industry, as was his grandfather. I don't even think, with all due respect to him, he understands it 100%; I don't think anybody can.

A few months ago we released a document we received from HRDC. They're going to spend $355,000 on a training video for self-defence. It's to protect the employees of HRDC against the justifiable, perceptible anger of fisherpeople.

It just seems to me that at the same time, as well as before that, DFO officers who went on board ship years ago were welcomed as allies and friends. Now when they go on board these ships, especially the small 18 and 34-11 boats, they carry a sidearm and they're in fear. They no longer are trusted.

It just seems quite ironic that someone from the military will now be appointed to a very senior position. It just seems to me that with the merger of the coast guard, my justification seems to be more verified now that the coast guard is running DFO. The management of the coast guard with their quasi-military style of enforcement is now within DFO. If possible, I would like you to correct me if I'm wrong.

One thing, Mr. Murray, I do admire your military record. I've been proud. One of the reasons we moved to this country was because my father was rescued by the Canadian military as a POW during the war. The Canadian military saved him. I'm very proud of what you've done in your military record.

Having said that, I do know that military people are bonded together. They look after and support one another. Unfortunately, right now the DFO is not looking after the civilian workers of the DND, the coast guard, and the DFO. I have a document here from John Fox of the Union of Canadian Transport Employees. It says right here that:

...Commissioner of the Coast Guard, Mr. John Thomas, has gained employment in a senior management role within Irving Oil immediately after his departure from the Dept. of Fisheries & Oceans in 1997. Our understanding is that Mr. Thomas is currently head of the shipbuilding division of Irving Oil.

—and surprise, surprise—

Irving Oil has since submitted letters of interest in replacing through contract major portions of Coast Guard services.

It is this type of incestuous relationship that DFO has with industry that really upsets the average fisher and me personally. We have people time and time again who have worked with DFO and have made decisions on behalf of DFO, especially alternate service delivery, who now work for these private industries after they've waited their year or two. If it was me, it would be 20 years before they could even think of bidding on contracts. Those companies are benefiting from those decisions they were making in DFO. We have that in DND as well. I find that completely unacceptable.

Sir, if it's true that military people look after one another, I would encourage you on behalf of all those employees who worked—you would be aware of this—16 hours a day for six weeks during the Gulf War crisis to prepare the Preserver, Protecteur, and—I forget the other one, but it starts with a P as well—the three frigate ships to get them ready.... Now their just reward eight years later is that they're out of work. You're gone. See you later.

Sir, I would really encourage you, if at all possible, to stop the alternate service delivery and maintain those people's livelihood so they can look after their families.

I know I can go on forever here, sir, and I really appreciate again you being here. If it's time, I'll end it right there.

The Chairman: Would the minister or associate deputy minister wish to make any comments concerning Mr. Stoffer's comments?

Mr. Larry Murray: Perhaps I'll start, Mr. Chairman, and then the minister will leap in. I think the question is directed to me in relation to scientists, the coast guard military mix, and personnel issues. So maybe I'll tackle those three.

In terms of science, I think the minister has made it.... In fact, I know there have been dramatic changes in terms of how this department has received science in the last few years with the establishment not only inside the department, but outside the department, of organizations like the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, which provides advice to the minister from all sectors, including scientists. That's wide open, purely factual, and in the public domain. The minister has put in train, together with the Province of British Columbia, the establishment of a similar organization on the west coast.

• 1635

Internally, within the department, the minister has made it clear that scientists, like other public servants, have the obligation to provide factual information to the public and the media within their areas of responsibility—in other words, to explain the facts. As we look at our public communications posture and so on, we're looking for ways to do that more proactively. For example, the briefing on the status of foreign fishing and all of that might make a great technical briefing to the public and the media in St. John's and here and so on. So we are moving on that at the minister's direction.

In terms of the coast guard and military mix, as I mentioned at the outset, I was involved in a study in 1990 of organizational things relative to the marine fleets. It was the conclusion of that body—I was part of it, and did one of the papers there—that the current structure and the current division between naval and civilian fleets was appropriate for a variety of reasons, including efficiency and so on, but most appropriate because of the nature of the role of the military, at least in Canadian democracy, relative to law enforcement.

Law enforcement traditionally in this country has been done by civilian agencies, and therefore the conclusion of Mr. Osbaldeston was that the separation should be maintained but the organization should work closer together. That has continued to be the case. One of the recommendations was a review two years after that point to see whether the civilian fleets should be merged. That happened; as you're aware, the civilian fleets have merged. I believe the merger has been positive. Certainly the coming together of the DFO fleet and the coast guard fleet brings cultures together, and we're working our way through that.

I think in any sea-going environment paramilitary discipline, if you want to call it that, has something to offer. But I would suggest that my arrival doesn't signal any change in the current very professional organization of both the coast guard and the DFO. They will continue to work together. My role is to provide whatever input I can to ensure we do it as effectively as possible, but there will be no more militarization of the coast guard because I have arrived.

In terms of personnel, that is one of the two or three top issues on the minister's agenda and on Wayne Wouters' agenda. Indeed, we have recently commenced a human resources committee chaired by the deputy minister to try to come to grips with human resources issues in the department. We have 9,500 excellent people and we will work very hard at coming to grips with some of the issues that are on their minds, such as training, professional development, some additional recruiting and that sort of thing.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Minister, did you want to add anything?

Mr. David Anderson: I would only add that I think Mr. Stoffer owes Mr. Murray a case of Moosehead beer. He did offer.

I would like to add something, seriously. He made some comments about Mr. Thomas, and the same basic criticism was made about the appointment of a former military officer in our department. I think we have to recognize that if people cannot be employed by private companies or within government when they leave the federal service, there is not a great deal of opportunity and we lose tremendous experience and ability if we lose the senior people who have plenty of energy left.

It's no longer the case that when we reach retirement we just gasp a bit, sit down in an easy chair, watch television and wait for the inevitable finale. We have plenty of very active people who put in 20 more years after retiring from the public service or from the military and do a very good job. We must realize they contribute dramatically to the economy of Canada. And a blanket principle, as Mr. Stoffer has suggested, in both the civilian companies and government, would be extremely destructive to the economic future of this country.

I certainly agree this should not be a militarized operation. The coast guard is very important. But I can assure Mr. Stoffer that the last time I wore a military uniform was 35 years ago, when I was a reserve pilot in the RCAF. I do not regard this as a military organization. Yes, we have the uniforms of the coast guard. We also have the uniforms for the enforcement officers and ships' crews of the former fisheries service boats. Some element of structure always goes with a fleet of any sort. It's the same with the B.C. government ferries, in fact.

I would agree with him that nobody understands the industry 100%. I would be the first to say I don't, and I know Mr. Murray doesn't either. We all bring different skills to the mix and we try to put together a mix that is reasonably comprehensive.

• 1640

On Langara Island, there is no 12-mile limit in which only sports fishing takes place. I would remind you that there are many other lodges as well as those of Mr. Wright at Langara Island. There is no exclusive zone for a particular operator.

I would add that the sports fishing organizations take 3% of the salmon caught in British Columbia—3%—and they contribute just as much in dollar terms to the economy of British Columbia as the other commercial fleet, which takes the other 97% of the salmon. So to eliminate sports fishing and lodge fishing and the tourism associated with it—the hundreds of millions of dollars that come to the economy of British Columbia—simply for an ideological belief would be, I think, unwise.

As for the reference to a judicial inquiry, I honestly do not think it would serve any positive purpose to have our department totally disrupted, with every scientist who's been involved in groundfish work re-checking his notes of eight, ten, or five years ago, looking at everything that's been done, with a bunch of lawyers questioning them trying to determine what was happening in the ocean. You can't go back and have an experiment in a laboratory to tell what was going on in the ocean in 1992.

To have a bunch of lawyers arguing with scientists—think of the clash of those two cultures that would result. It would certainly have some interesting results, but I think it would not serve the cause of looking to the future and dealing with the problems of the fishery of the future.

That's as much as I wish to add, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I wonder now if we could go to more questioners. Mr. Duncan has correctly pointed out to me that I have mistakenly given his party less time than the other political parties. We can't do that, so we're going to have to try to correct that when we go to Mr. Matthews and then to Mr. Easter. Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the minister and Mr. Murray for appearing before the committee, and to have this opportunity to ask a few questions and to make a few comments.

First of all, let me say I don't think we should take any success from the fact that catches from quotas allocated to foreign fleets in Canadian waters have dropped because of anything we've done. It's another example of our mismanagement of the fishery. The reason foreigners are taking less fish inside of 200 is because the fish is not there due to our mismanagement. So let's not read any success into the fact that our average has dropped from...the minister said something like 350,000 tonnes in the 1970s to now 200,000 tonnes. It's not a success story; it's a failure story. It's why Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are on a moratorium right now. It's because of our failure and our mismanagement. I want to at least get that off my chest.

If my information is correct, Mr. Chairman, foreigners are still harvesting silver hake, argentine, squid, grenadier, capelin, tuna, cod, mackerel, turbot, and redfish inside of our 200-mile economic zone. That's my understanding. That's the information I've been given. I would like some comment from the minister and Mr. Murray on that.

Why I make that reference is that I find it hard to believe that with the situation in Atlantic Canada today.... I know of communities in Newfoundland and Labrador today and in Burin—St. George's that have people in place who would readily process some of those species taken by foreigners and put those people back to productive work. I want some comment on that.

Mr. Murray, you mentioned the seals, and said the quota on seals was based on scientific data and information. I'd like to know how many seals there are, and why, in 1998—at least 30 years since the sealing controversy broke out with Brigitte Bardot, and is now fuelled by others—we do not know, why DFO cannot tell us, what seals eat. Is it that they don't know what seals eat, or they don't want to tell us what seals eat? For us not to be able to know that answer today, after 30 years, is a further admission of failure.

Minister, you admitted there are foreign vessels inside of 200. Unless I heard you incorrectly today in question period, you said there weren't any, in a response to Mr. Keddy.

Canadian utilization of stocks and fish: Minister, I've been told within the last week that there are Canadian vessel owners, corporate owners, that for the last two years have asked DFO for turbot quotas in sub-area zero. They have been denied, I am told. I would like to get your response and your reaction to that.

• 1645

My belief is that they are Canadianized, they have capitalized their vessels and their enterprises, and they should, as you said, have first call on the turbot. It will be caught by Atlantic Canadian fishermen in Atlantic Canadian boats and processed in Atlantic Canadian ports. If what they have told me is correct, how can anyone explain why they've been denied that for the last two years when we have foreign vessels with foreign crews chartered by interests catching that fish?

Again, I would like you or Mr. Murray to respond to another piece of information that I received, which is that indeed, some corporate interests buy quotas in the water. They pay a fee for the fish in the water and then charter foreign vessels and foreign crews to catch this.

Mr. Chairman, I'll stop there and get some responses from the witnesses.

The Chairman: Thank you. Would either of you—

Mr. Larry Murray: I'll start, Mr. Chairman, and the minister will pick up afterwards.

In terms of the various species that were raised, I didn't get the whole list. I believe that reflects my understanding, for the most part, of fish that are caught within the Canadian zone, but for a variety of different regions and regimes, as I understand it.

In other words, there are arrangements falling out of the 1994 treaty with France that give France certain rights in a very unique situation within the 200-mile limit. I think that covers a couple of the species the minister has already talked about, silver hake and squid.

Tuna, I think, is a unique case as well, in that tuna is the result of an international organization, the acronym of which is ICCAT, which stands for the—I don't remember—International Commission of something and the `T', I presume, stands for tuna.

There is a quota set, and Canada, the U.S. and Japan agree on how much tuna they're going to take. As I understand it, the tuna we're talking about is western Atlantic tuna. Therefore, whether the Japanese take their agreed share of that tuna inside our 200-mile limit or outside, it's still within a quota of a transboundary fish.

So I believe that there is a rational explanation for each of those species. In fact, I think Earl Wiseman tried to cover that last week, but certainly, Mr. Chairman, we can come back. I'd be happy to come back and provide the committee with a specific comment on each of those species if necessary.

In terms of how many seals there are, I believe there are 4.8 million harp seals. I don't know why I remember that number, but I believe that's the case. I don't know how many hooded seals there are. I think the key issue, and the issue that the minister has to deal with, is the scientific assessment of how many there are and how much the seal population can be reduced and still remain sustainable, ergo the 275,000 number, because we also have to take the quota in Greenland into account.

I think we know what seals eat. I can't explain scientifically why we don't know how much of it they eat. As I said, as a result of a recent conference, there is more energy going into that. I don't have the scientific answer for why we don't know how much.

Mr. Bill Matthews: What they eat?

Mr. Larry Murray: We know what they eat. What we don't know is how much of it they eat, and that's the problem.

Mr. Bill Matthews: So what is the conclusion, then? Can you inform us as to what the conclusion is?

Mr. Larry Murray: They eat various types of sea life, including small cod, all sorts of small fish, capelin.... But I think the challenge, as I understand it, because I've asked the same question, is that we don't know how much of it they eat. We're trying to get a handle on that.

Mr. David Anderson: I would only add that we are concerned about those tuna stocks and the swordfish stocks, which are the pelagic fish, where an allocation is given under the ICCAT, which stands for the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.

We are concerned. We feel the overall TAC, the total allowable catch, is high. We'd like it lowered. On the other hand, we get a slice of that overall, and the Japanese do too. If we didn't allow them to fish where the fish are, whether it's in Canadian waters.... We can't take those fish, but they have a quota, so they can. If we didn't allow them to fish where the fish are, maybe they wouldn't allow us access to the Japanese market, which is where these tuna frequently bring well over $10,000 each for our fishermen.

• 1650

I was sitting on a plane with a fisherman who had two tags for tuna, and he got $23,000 in 1997 for his two tags. He did other fishing as well. It took him 40 days. He might not have that access to the Japanese market if for no reason we hassle Japanese vessels in Canadian waters. I say “no reason” because they're going to take their quota anyway, either inside or outside, and we can't take the fish in their place. It's important to realize that's part of our international agreement.

We benefit from taking part in an international system. If we moved out, of course there's no quota for Canada under that, so it would be a free-for-all and tuna would disappear. The stocks of tuna would disappear if we had unlimited fishing.

With respect to the people willing to fish, Mr. Matthews, I would really like to get together with you and discuss the information you have, because we want Canadian fishermen to take up these quotas. We encourage them. I mentioned that even on the west coast we put a big chunk of money into a surimi plant. I have some ideological concerns about government investment in fish plants, but we did that simply to create a market so those fish would be landed in Canada.

With respect to seals, we really should leave this to the scientists, but none of us can resist the temptation. Seals are an opportunistic feeder. They will feed on what goes past their nose. They have preferences, just as we all do when we see the restaurant menu, but we don't necessarily eat the same thing every night, and nor do they. So the figures you get are very varied.

Furthermore, seals have a bad habit, in the eyes of some fishermen, of going for choice morsels of a fish, such as the liver for salmon. The problem with that is they digest in the stomach a lot faster than say a lobster shell. In other words, you don't get very accurate information. It's very difficult to get that. We're trying. We're doing substantial numbers of stomach analyses on both coasts, but we do not have a clear picture, and the scientists can probably explain in much better detail why.

With respect to sub-area 0, there was a dispute with Greenland as to how much we could take, because as I think you know, we tried to take 60% of the TAC for that area for turbot, and we were cut back by a federal court on the one hand and pressure from some of our NAFO partners on the other, and we're back at 50%. That may be the issue you're referring to. I could certainly provide more detailed information from our officials on that.

But please, sir—and this goes to every member of the committee—if you have examples of fish companies or fishermen who wish to fish these stocks, we're happy to have it happen, because that's the purpose of our Canadianization programs: to get more Canadians fishing and to have less fishing by foreign vessels.

The Chairman: Mr. Matthews, you can't ask another question, but did you want to make a short comment?

Mr. Bill Matthews: I can't ask another question?

The Chairman: Well, if you have a point of clarification, go ahead, Mr. Matthews. We have to go back to the Reform Party afterwards.

Mr. Bill Matthews: There are a thousand questions, Mr. Chairman.

To change the focus, Mr. Minister, on the Pacific salmon situation, where do you see us going with that? We're gearing up for another fishing season in B.C. I'd just like to get your response as to where the government is headed with the U.S. on the situation. It's obviously one of great concern in B.C. It looks to me as though this year is going to be worse than last year, from the salmon point of view, the earnings point of view, and the unemployment point of view. I'm just wondering where we're headed with that, because it's something that really has to be dealt with.

It seems on the surface that the only way to deal with it is government to government, but today I asked you about the possibility of international arbitration in light of Ambassador Beeby's report of 1996. If my information is correct, he did come down on the Canadian side and said we do have a very strong case. I'd like to get your reaction to that.

Mr. David Anderson: Mr. Matthews, I'd like to thank you for your factually based and important question this afternoon. I apologize for the.... Well, the speaker cut me off as I was getting into the supplementary you're now asking.

I think we're going to have a tough time negotiating with the Americans. The issue of states' involvement is still there, despite the recommendation of government-to-government negotiations and despite the clear statement from Messrs. Ruckelshaus and Strangway that there should be a transfer of fish to Canada.

• 1655

We will have a very tough negotiation period. In fact, we're of course in discussions with them now, and we do not see any great change of heart on the American side. I will get into why in a moment, but I will say that my deputy minister and the deputy minister of foreign affairs—

The Chairman: Could you not be...?

Mr. David Anderson: They're in Washington right at the moment. They went down today to start working out negotiations on this very issue. And I'm happy, again, to get together with you over a lunch or something, Mr. Matthews, so we can discuss this in detail, because it's not going to be an easy game at all. Those people who say Mr. Ruckelshaus said we outfish, therefore the Americans are obviously going to do it, simply don't understand the American political system.

The Chairman: Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): I have a fairly simple question, Mr. Chair. It's to Mr. Murray.

In our hearings, both east and west coast, if there's one thing that's abundantly clear, in every community to which we went there's anger, frustration, suspicion, and an extreme lack of trust towards DFO. There's a lot factored into that.

Any organization builds up a history, and eventually there's a lot of baggage to carry. On top of it you have the stock reduction on both coasts. You have the manoeuvres we have made in order to get our fiscal house in order. But I think if there's anything that's probably paramount in terms of what we do as a government, it is that we have to establish a trust.

The observer reports are a prime example. I believe the committee has been given the compilation of the data in terms of the total observer reports, but there's a suspicion there that those figures aren't right, even after a very good hearing we had the other day, and there's suspicion in terms of yourself, as Peter pointed out, coming from the military.

So how would you see your skills and experience—and certainly some of that experience has been pretty stressful, and I hope this job isn't as stressful—helping as we move down this road to building that trust that we need with the fishing community in order to develop a positive relationship and a positive future?

Mr. Larry Murray: It's tough to give a short answer to that one, Mr. Chairman, because a number of things went through my head.

In regard to the comment earlier about the military and the team and that sort of thing, I must tell you that since I've come to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, an organization I had worked with for a number of years and I wanted to come to, I have been so impressed with the people. I've been to Halifax; I've been to Winnipeg; I've walked through most sectors now and talked to individuals throughout our headquarters in Ottawa. It's a tremendous organization of tremendous, dedicated people who are hurting as a result of the sorts of things Mr. Easter has raised. They find themselves in a very difficult situation, but they're so dedicated. They have a very tough role because of basically conservation problems on both coasts and the fiscal problems that have necessitated certain decisions that have put them in a very tough spot.

That's actually why we're focusing, number one, internally, in terms of coming to grips with some of the personnel issues, because these people are superb; they're professional. We have to deal with a few personnel issues at the front end. That includes things like training and professional development opportunities. Recent pay negotiations and so on are a good thing.

We have to do some recruiting, as well. The average age of fisheries enforcement officers is 48 or 49 years old. It's a tough way to make a living, and we have to bring in some new blood there. We haven't hired a full-time scientist since 1992. This is a science-based department. We must move there.

At the end of the day, though, I think the issue may come down to the point of openness of scientists. These people are doing a superb job. You saw a demonstration of it last Thursday. The people you saw here briefed you. That's what they're doing all the time. The fisheries enforcement officers—there were six or eight of them in town for a conference on firearms training—are superb people. Somehow I think we have to expose them in other situations to the community at large.

• 1700

Our training program for fisheries enforcement officers now is accepted as being as good as the RCMP's. We're recruiting fine young people and somehow we have to turn the corner for them. I think part of it is perhaps more transparency and openness in terms of getting out somehow to the average Canadian that these people are professionals dealing with a tough environment, and certainly the minister has encouraged us to do that.

In terms of my own background, I'm not sure. I said at the end of my talk I'll do my best and I'll try to focus on those areas I've been asked to focus on by the minister. But it is a superb organization and I hope in the context of your reports, which the minister and we are looking forward to, the excellence of the people within the department somehow gets some attention. Because I think there are superb people doing a tough job at a tough time. Thank you.

The Chairman: I think you'll find the reports interesting, Mr. Murray.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you, Mr. Baker. I have two questions for the minister and a comment, and I have two questions for Mr. Murray, the associate deputy minister.

Mr. Minister, you have talked about legal opinions you have, which you're abiding by. I'm wondering if you'd be prepared to share those legal opinions with the committee. We're willing to share ours with you; are you willing to share yours with us?

Mr. David Anderson: This is a policy about which you'd have to ask the Minister of Justice, because of course legal opinions come from the Ministry of Justice. I know as a normal rule legal opinions are not released. I don't know what she would respond, but I'm happy to ask her the question. It would be a justice department decision.

Mr. John Duncan: It appears the government gets it both ways on every issue. If you're not hiding anything, if there's nothing to hide with this information, the actions give every appearance that there is something to hide, and if the government is going to neuter the work of committees 100% of the time, then we're going to be about as useful as Senator Thompson when it comes to getting anything done around here.

I can't imagine Jesse Helms saying okay, we agree that government doesn't have to share this information with our committee. We have to listen to what people are saying. To make our parliamentary system work, the committee system has to be allowed to function. We can't use the majority of the government to deny what is rightfully in the domain of the committees. So I'd ask the minister to review his decision in light of the precedents I presented.

Finally, I have a comment for the minister. In your presentation, you talked twice about foreign fishing of 2,000 tonnes or less. That has to be semantics. That can't be including bilateral fishing agreements and the French agreements and so on. I think this is a major problem for the committee, which makes it look like you're once again manipulating a message, and I can't just let that go by.

Mr. Murray, the public is skeptical about your appointment. It looks like a partisan appointment. It looks like a reward for your actions at the Department of National Defence. You were on watch during the Somalia inquiry. Normally when we have a person of your stature, a three-star general, you go till age 55—this is the normal perception—in the military and then you go on to consulting or directorships, or senior civil servant posts. So what are we to think about this sudden landing at DFO?

• 1705

Mr. Larry Murray: I will get serious in a second here, but I mean this humorously. Although I'm Mr. Murray, I was a three-star admiral, not a three-star general.

Mr. John Duncan: I apologize. I'll remember that the next time.

Mr. Larry Murray: In terms of your question, I can only tell you that in the context of the Somalia commission report, I offered my resignation verbally to the Minister of Defence on July 1. I put it on paper on July 23. I did not ask for anything. The message was basically that I'm prepared to stay or I'm prepared to leave. If the decision of the government is that my presence will somehow carry on the Somalia controversy for the fine men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces in the government, then I will leave happily, without complaint.

I didn't ask for anything. Indeed I was quite surprised when I was asked to stay in government, having spent the summer trying to figure out what I wanted to do with my life when I grew up. I had not done a very good job of sorting out what I wanted to do. I had sorted out some things I didn't want to do and I guess I thought I was heading either back into the marine business, back to Halifax, or to an NGO somewhere because certain other things didn't appeal to me.

When I was asked to stay in the public service, I agreed because I happen to enjoy working for the country and there were a couple of areas in particular that interested me, DFO being one. I'm here because I was asked to be, because I thought I could contribute. That's reality.

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you for that.

DFO is widely viewed as requiring major restructuring, major change, and your reputation is basically one of defending the institution, defending the status quo. Why should we believe you're going to bring badly needed change to the department?

Mr. Larry Murray: From my own perspective, having been there for three months, at this juncture I wouldn't want to sign up to a thesis that revolutionary change is required in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The Minister has given me guidance. The deputy minister, who I also work for, is engaged and quite frankly the sorts of things we're engaged in at the moment I would describe as evolutionary, not revolutionary, change.

We're basically sorting out an overall strategic framework, sorting out the management model, and sorting out and refining who does what to whom. We're coming to grips with issues like recruitment, as I mentioned, professional development, and training. Certainly virtually everyone I've met in the department so far has impressed the hell out of me with their dedication. If I'm guilty of that, then so be it. That's my opinion.

I believe the momentum is there to in fact carry on with constructive change, constructive reform within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. There is a remarkable consensus within the organization from the bottom up that certain things are required, and that's what we're working on now.

Mr. John Duncan: Can I ask one more? We and a lot of others have a perception that DFO operated a lot better when it was a professional fisheries service. In a lot of people's perception it has become bureaucratised, particularly in the upper ranks. A lot of times you associate that with Ottawa, but I think it's happened in the regions as well.

Your appointment is viewed as a further bureaucratisation of the department, although the same criticism is levelled at the military. The military operated really well when it was a professional service, but then it obtained a bureaucracy and the bureaucracy started to run the military. That's a perception that many share, including people in the military. Are you going to work to try to end this?

Mr. Larry Murray: First of all, at least regarding the Canadian forces, from my perspective the criticism of an organization that's performed the way they've performed in the last few years is misplaced. I think it's a highly professional organization that has done a super job abroad and in areas like Manitoba, this province, and across the river in the last month or two. I think the Canadian Forces has performed just fine in the minds of the vast majority of Canadians.

• 1710

In terms of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, I think one of the issues involved in this refinement, if you want to call it that, or evolutionary change is in fact trying to look at devolution and then empowerment; to move decision-making in the context of a national framework of the necessary sorts of things required by the Auditor General and others, a performance measurement and all that, with the necessary policy framework in place to move the decision-making further out; to give regional directors general, in the context of clear national programs, more freedom of action to in fact fight exactly the issue that is being raised, Mr. Chairman, and that is the bureaucratization; to move greater empowerment, to move resources and response, to the extent that we can, out to the regions, recognizing that in this particular department many of the issues end up with the minister. That's one of the challenges and one of the things that makes it difficult to balance.

Mr. David Anderson: There were two questions addressed to me.

I would say to the first one, about the impressions about following the law, that I think that the law, whether the interpretation is right or wrong.... I believe it to be right, because I've had that advice, and I think it would be extraordinarily strange for a minister of the crown to give the impression that he intended to break the law deliberately.

With respect to Jackie Helms, I would point out to you that he has had innumerable briefings in camera. He's served on defence committees, he's served on intelligence committees. The number of times it has happened I think would probably be in the hundreds.

I repeat the offer to brief you in camera with that information so that you will in fact have it. We've given you the aggregate of the information, but I again repeat the offer to do what Jackie Helms has had many times, and that is have an in camera briefing.

With respect to the French, you are perfectly correct. The French are a little different, but it's a bit like the French have sovereign rights in North America in the same way Canada does and the same way the United States does. We must take those into account in our fishing agreements with them. And on the whole we do pretty well with the French. They are very cooperative on conservation issues. We don't always agree.

With respect to professional fishery service, you will remember Carl Walters and Mr. Hutchings came to this committee, two of the three critics of the department in that famous memorandum they issued. I do wish people would read that and discover what was actually said, because if you did, you would perhaps have a somewhat different perception. What Mr. Walters said.... I remember the Canadian Press story, the third sentence. Carl Walters said he approved of what David Anderson was doing to have science throughout the management levels of the department. Two sentences beyond we had Mr. Hutchings make a similar positive remark about the way science is integrated into the department. So those are the critics who agree with what we've done and the changes we've made.

I think you also have to recognize that much of the work of Mr. Murray is managerial. For instance, I was at Prescott base today. We will have to cut out one ship. The question is how you deploy ships when you reduce your fleet. We will of course have that fleet in use for some weeks of the year, the third vessel for buoy tending, but we can't have it operational 12 months of the year because of budgetary restraints and program review.

We have had some dramatic changes to the department, and I will be relying heavily upon the managerial skills of Larry Murray. He has those skills and those are necessary so we can deploy our resources effectively for the marine elements we have to service, the commercial fleets we have to service, the search and rescue we have to service, and in addition the fishermen we have to assist and service.

Mr. John Duncan: On a point of clarification, I said Jesse Helms; I have no idea who Jackie Helms is. I'm talking about an American politician.

Mr. David Anderson: My apology; I have written down the wrong name. Jesse Helms would be the correct person, yes. The point, though, I think you would agree, is he is a man who no doubt has had innumerable in camera briefings.

• 1715

Mr. John Duncan: Absolutely, but we're talking about the public trust. It doesn't do the public any good for us to go into a briefing and find out. Whatever we find out in there, we are thereafter held to say nothing. So it doesn't matter what we learn in there; we can't disseminate it. That's a very dangerous precedent for us to set, and we don't want to set it. It's that clear: this has to do with the public trust.

Mr. David Anderson: To that I would agree, Mr. Duncan. If people do not trust you, as a member of Parliament and representative of the people of Canada—

Mr. John Duncan: That's not what I'm talking about.

Mr. David Anderson: If indeed that information is provided to you and people still don't trust the members of this committee, we have a problem.

Mr. John Duncan: They shouldn't trust this committee if we accept your offer, because it will tie us down and we won't be able to represent the public interest.

Mr. David Anderson: Nevertheless, quite apart from that issue, I must obey the law.

The second thing you must realize is that in constantly repeating this demand, if it turns out that one day this demand is somehow, by use of some other legal mechanism...we would dramatically impact adversely the international system we have in place now of observers on every vessel out there. If we lose those observers, we lose control of the fishing that takes place by foreign fleets on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, and of course on the Flemish Cap as well. That's really an important consideration.

Mr. John Duncan: Is that not the real issue? Is that not what has been unsaid up until now? And if that is the real issue, is there not another way to approach it that will protect the public interest?

Mr. David Anderson: The way to approach it to protect the public is to have an in camera hearing, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: That's your opinion.

Anyway, I'm very concerned about the fact that in regard to legal opinions that the government holds—not just in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, because I've run into this before in other pursuits—the government determines whether they're going to release legal opinions, and they never do—

Mr. David Anderson: In this instance, the law—

Mr. John Duncan: —so where are we?

Mr. David Anderson: The legal interpretation given to me of section 20 of the Access to Information Act is straightforward. I couldn't care less whether you had this information if in fact we didn't have the problem of the international fleets. I'm delighted to give it to you in camera. But we do have a problem of the law.

Mr. John Duncan: But the international fleet shouldn't have precedent over the Canadian public interest. That's my point.

The Chairman: Order. We could go on like this ad infinitum. We want to conclude the meeting.

Do you gentlemen have something you want to say? Mr. Stoffer first.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I want to reiterate to Mr. Murray, through the minister, that what he just said scares me. He's so concerned about the foreign fleet and the foreign nations. All I'm asking this department to do is to pay a little attention to the people of Catalina, of Burgeo, of Sambro, of Louisbourg, of Sointula, B.C., and of Prince Rupert. They're Canadian taxpayers who live off a resource, a resource that was managed by DFO. Please, please, pay a little attention to those people and their welfare as well.

The Chairman: Mr. Matthews, did you want to add...?

Mr. Bill Matthews: As a point of clarification, I believe, Minister, you said in response to Mr. Duncan that if we lose those observers, meaning that if we were to view the observers' reports and consequently it became public.... Did I interpret it right?

Mr. David Anderson: Yes, sir.

Mr. Bill Matthews: If we did that, there's a danger we would lose the observers from those vessels; consequently, there would be no reports.

Mr. David Anderson: If we break international law and agreements and our own law and agreements—

Mr. Bill Matthews: So are you telling me that we're bound by these international agreements that we will not disclose certain aspects of the observers' reports, and if we do, then the observer program goes up in smoke? Is that it?

Mr. David Anderson: We have an agreement with other nations with respect to observers on their flag vessels, their territory, in international waters—

Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes.

Mr. David Anderson: —not Canadian waters.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Right.

Mr. David Anderson: We have agreements. Those agreements depend in part upon their understanding and our understanding of how the information will be used. Their understanding is it will be used in accordance with Canadian law and they would have the protection of Canadian law, including section 20 of the Access to Information Act.

I don't say I cannot judge what they would do; I am simply saying if you remove that protection, if you violate Canadian law, if you do this in a period when there's a lot of pressure on these companies to get rid of the observers because of the cost involved, you risk having them say that the information they believed would be kept confidential the Canadians are now making public, so that's it, Canada, with respect to foreign observers.

With respect to Mr. Stoffer, that is very important to the people of Atlantic Canada and the communities he listed, very important that we maintain international agreements and we maintain the NAFO organization in the area outside the 200-mile limit.

• 1720

The Chairman: On the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap—you understand that.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes, but my point—

The Chairman: Go ahead, I'm sorry.

Mr. Bill Matthews: It's my understanding, again, that they are foreign observers on foreign vessels.

Mr. David Anderson: No. Well, these are in fact not the same nationality as the vessel itself. Most of the observers on the Spanish vessels are—

Mr. Bill Matthews: But they are foreign; they're not Canadian.

Mr. David Anderson: Some could be Canadian, but they in fact are British on most of the Spanish vessels.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Right. They go back to their ports. That's where we basically get a lot of the information—when it's unloaded at their foreign port. Then we're bound, by whatever international arrangement, not to disclose certain information, because if we do then we'll lose the observer program or—

Mr. David Anderson: We risk it.

Mr. Bill Matthews: It just begs the question, what are we really gaining from the observer program? It really threw me when you said that, by the way.

Mr. David Anderson: I would like to answer that question, because that's the crux of this debate. What we would lose is the information and overall total about the foreign fishing on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I don't think we're getting it, Minister. I think what you've confirmed for me today are my worst fears—that we're not getting what we think we're getting.

Mr. David Anderson: That is a separate issue, which is the fact that the information given is false. But we would have no information at all. We would not have those foreign observers. You were claiming that the British observers on the Spanish vessels are not providing accurate information. That may be true or it may not be true. What I am telling you is if they're not providing that honest information, you won't get the information until you see their reports of the individual trips.

I just do not see why you wish to pursue a matter that could so damage our presence and our fishermen in Atlantic Canada when you have the aggregate information.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I don't, I really don't. But I really have to question the benefit of the agreements we've entered into. I'm wondering what we're really getting out of this. Is it that we're content to tell the Canadian public that there are observers on those vessels? That's supposed to satisfy those who don't have anything to fish now—that because of this international agreement we've entered into as a Canadian government with them.... But there are all those restrictions on the information we either get or can release. That really again raises the—

Mr. David Anderson: No, no. The information is there in its aggregate form, and you have it, sir. You have it. You have the information, which in addition has come from the observers at the fishing ports. If in fact you're claiming that the observers' reports are inaccurate, well then it doesn't matter if we get them or not, because there's no way of telling that, beyond an individual basis. We can have other checks on the overall aggregate figures, because you can tell what happens in various fish markets of the world, in particular in Spain, in Japan, and also in Boston.

The issue we have to face up to, and you as a committee must face up to, is will you pursue this issue? And indeed, if you ultimately succeed, you may risk destroying the observer system in the North Atlantic. We know there's pressure out there from companies that don't want to pay the cost of the foreign observers aboard their vessels. We know those foreign observers are providing important information to us. It may not be 100% accurate, again, but it's certainly the very best estimate we have of what is actually taking place.

The Chairman: We could go on all day, but since we invited Mr. Murray here especially, I would like to give Mr. Murray an opportunity to perhaps give his opinion on what he has just heard.

Mr. Larry Murray: I just had one very small point. One of the reasons we do boardings, including boardings on vessels with observers, including foreign observers, is to cross-check. As the minister says, it's not necessarily 100% accurate, but we do boardings with vessels with foreign observers on them, and the information we get from those is cross-related to what we get from the observers. If there were a major problem, I presume it would become evident. In other words, there is an additional check on that through our own boarding system.

The Chairman: I'll have to thank the witness appearing today.

When we set up this meeting and requested that Mr. Murray come, of course, we had done up a report on the Order in Council appointments. We'll have to postpone saying—if we wish to do this vote at a later date—that the committee has examined the qualifications of the appointee and finds him competent or not competent to perform the duties of the post. I would suggest to the committee that we're going to have to do it at the next full meeting we have. Is that agreeable to the committee?

• 1725

Mr. John Duncan: I don't think we have a quorum here, do we?

The Chairman: I want to sincerely thank you, Mr. Murray, for coming here today on such short notice. We really appreciate it. I also want to thank the minister for making himself available immediately to appear before the committee. Again, thank you for coming.

Mr. Larry Murray: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.