FISH Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 26, 1998

• 0914

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): I'd like to bring our committee meeting to order. We are on radio frequencies 105.5 MHz, 105.9 MHz, and 106.3 MHz this morning. We're doing videoteleconferencing, and this is pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study of fisheries issues.

We have with us here in Ottawa, in the committee room, Mr. Bruce Osmond and Mr. Ron Langdon, who are representing the Coalition of Community Groups,

By videoteleconferencing from the Miramichi in New Brunswick, we have the Conservation Council of New Brunswick. The president, Inka Milewski, is with us.

We also have Jean-Guy Comeau, a Northumberland County woodlot owner.

• 0915

We also have Mr. Denis Landry from the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick. According to MP Charles Hubbard, he is a great ecologist and he's very interested in this subject.

Mr. Hubbard, of course, was the person who moved the motion for us to address these issues today as they relate to fisheries, streams and rivers, and forestry in general.

So perhaps we could start by going to our videoteleconferencing. I think we have two sites, so we're going to do one at a time.

First, I wonder if those of you from the Miramichi could introduce yourselves. Then we could have some opening statements from each of you, if you wish, or just from one person there. It's up to you.

Could you introduce yourselves, please. We can see you very clearly.

Ms. Inka Milewski (President, Conservation Council of New Brunswick): I testified before the standing committee on fisheries issues in general. I do have a statement I would like to read. Then I'll pass to my colleagues around the table.

The Chairman: Go ahead.

Ms. Inka Milewski: Thank you. Over the past year, considerable attention has been given to the decline of Atlantic salmon in New Brunswick. Salmon-angling organizations, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientists, and members of Parliament have argued over how many Atlantic salmon are left and who should pay for salmon hatcheries.

Scientists from around the world have debated the cause of the decline and have pointed to...

[Editor's Note: Technical difficulty]...foreign overfishing and predation by seals as possible explanations. The obvious question concerning the decline in Atlantic salmon and, I might add, other anadromous species has not been asked.

Over the past four years millions of dollars have been spent on salmon hatcheries in New Brunswick. Thousands of volunteer hours have been put towards river and stream enhancement, millions of salmon have been released from hatcheries, and forest harvest buffers have been mandated along streams and rivers.

In view of these heroic efforts and seemingly sensible practices, why have Atlantic salmon populations in rivers throughout Atlantic Canada continued to decline? I think history provides an answer.

Over the last century the rivers in New Brunswick and probably the rest of the maritimes and in Canada, for that matter, have seen declines in other commercial fish species such as striped bass and gaspereau. It is widely acknowledged that the loss in spawning and juvenile habitats and a deterioration in water quality as a result of industrial discharges and large-scale forest harvesting have played a significant role in their decline. Why would these factors not have the same effect on Atlantic salmon?

In the 1850s Moses Perley, an immigration officer for the British government, surveyed the river fisheries of New Brunswick as well as the marine fisheries of the Bay of Fundy, and presented his report to the New Brunswick legislature. Up and down the coast of New Brunswick, Perley documented the effects of river damming and pollution from sawdust thrown into harbours and waterways on the river fisheries such as shad, gaspereau, striped bass and Atlantic salmon.

• 0920

He wrote:

the fishery in this harbour

—meaning Saint John—

is gradually falling off, as I believe, from the great quantity of saw dust thrown into the harbour, and the erection of saw mills and mill dams, on the different streams falling into the Saint John river.

By the early 1800s just about every river along the coast of New Brunswick had a dam and a sawmill constructed on it. Today just about every major river along the coast of New Brunswick is the recipient of pulp mill effluent, sewage outflow, the run-off from farms, as well as other non-point sources of pollution.

And today we can also add another problem, the effect of large-scale forest harvesting on river ecosystems. Large-scale forest harvesting involves clear-cutting and the conversion of natural diverse forest stands to simplified tree farms.

The dramatic simplification of our forest ecosystem has damaged our aquatic ecosystem by changing the hydrological and nutrient cycle in the watershed.

Large-scale clear-cutting increases high-water periods in streams and rivers, scours banks, and removes large, old fallen trees, wood debris and logjams that actually serve to diversify the stream habitat and provide a home for insects and plants that eventually become food for fish.

Research done on the Restigouche River demonstrates quite dramatically changes over time on the hydrology of the watershed in terms of timing and the rate of the spring freshet.

Beginning in 1964, long-term research done in the Hubbard Brook watershed in New Hampshire, a very large-scale piece of research in the United States, has demonstrated a variety of ecological impacts on the watershed due to clear-cutting.

As for nutrient cycling, clear-cutting, tree farms and intensive thinning of naturally regenerated stands prevent the retention of nutrients. Nutrients are released from these sites into rivers. They end up in estuaries where they contribute to eutrophication of coastal waters. High levels of organic materials in these nutrients also enhance diseased conditions in rivers and streams.

The Conservation Council believes that at the root of the fisheries crisis in rivers, as well as oceans, is the fact that habitat issues have been a very small part of the fisheries management equation. To continue to ignore the importance of habitat issues is to ignore a key factor in the survival of fish populations, perhaps one of the few areas, apart from fishing efforts, where we can have a direct and meaningful influence on fish population.

Ensuring the survival of fish species means protecting not only spawning habitats but the habitats of larvae, juveniles and adults. It means protecting the nursery habitats of eggs, and in the case of salmon, parr.

Most natural mortality occurs in the early life stages, from the time the egg is laid to some point in its juvenile state. It is well known that very small temperature variations can make a significant difference in the early stages of all species. For salmon this means ensuring that the canopy over streams is sufficient to keep the waters cool, and it means ensuring that the amount of sediment being dumped into the river is low to keep the oxygen levels high.

As salmon mature, the habitat requirements change. Feeding habitats such as pools, and migratory habitats such as estuaries, helps to ensure that young salmon will return to rivers to spawn again.

The Conservation Council is advocating an ecological approach to fisheries management. This approach has three objectives. First, critical ecological functions or processes that support fish populations must be protected. In the case of Atlantic salmon, this means protecting the forest ecosystem within the watershed.

Second, the habitat and physical environmental conditions necessary for spawning and survival of larvae and juvenile fish must be protected.

Third, the reproductive cycles must be protected from capture, and that means protecting egg-bearing females.

• 0925

These objectives can be pursued through a variety of approaches. A tough coastal zone management regime is essential to protect anadromous fish before they begin their migration upriver.

Higher standards for effluent discharges and a move to zero discharges of toxic contaminants would improve the survival of juveniles, adults, larvae and eggs.

A landscape approach to forest harvesting would help to protect the ecological foundation of all anadromous species, and that is their aquatic ecosystem.

The transfer of regulatory responsibility for freshwater fish habitats from the federal government to the provincial government will do little to improve the management situation. Since DFO, with its legions of scientists, could not predict or reverse the decline in Atlantic salmon, or other fisheries for that matter, it is unreasonable to expect the province to do a better job with fewer technical, scientific and enforcement personnel.

DFO must act swiftly and decisively to prosecute offenders under subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act. This section of the act deals with the alteration and destruction of fish habitats.

Furthermore, proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act need to integrate the protection of fish habitats with an ecological approach to fisheries management. Any attempts to manage fish resources must consider the health of their environment as well as harvest rates.

Until the focus of Atlantic salmon and other anadromous species is shifted from counting fish and stocking rivers to protecting their habitats, we may yet see the extinction of this and other once-abundant anadromous species.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Wonderful. Now, Inka, I wonder if you could introduce the other people in the room. Is Jean-Guy there?

Ms. Inka Milewski: He is. He's sitting right next to me. I'd like to introduce Jean-Guy Comeau.

The Chairman: This is the gentleman, as well, who Charles Hubbard claims is the great ecologist, the woodlot owner.

Inka, if it's okay with you, the members have asked that we have the presentations first and then go to questions after, to make sure we cover everybody. Is that okay?

Ms. Inka Milewski: Perfect.

Mr. Jean-Guy Comeau (Owner, Northumberland Country Woodlot): Good morning. Gentlemen, it's a pleasure to be here today.

I'm one of the many woodlot owners of New Brunswick. There are 35,000 woodlot owners in New Brunswick. Personally I'm a woodlot owner, but I also work in a pulp mill. I also do guiding and outfitting.

For most of my life the forest has been the only thing I know. Over the last 40 years... I can talk about 40 years. By the way, tomorrow is going to be my birthday. I'm going to be 54 years old. We're very pleased actually that I have achieved such an age. I've been involved in forestry since I was 14 years old.

So for me, when I talk about the forest, I talk about my whole life. For pretty well most New Brunswickers, something you cannot do without every day is look at the forest. Whether you're going to work, whether you're working in the forest or not, you're still involved with the forest.

If we look at woodlot owners of New Brunswick, the average woodlot owner would own approximately 130 acres. Some of us would own a lot more than that. Some would own 1,000 acres, maybe 2,000 acres, but in general the average is about 130 acres.

We look at the reason for a woodlot owner owning land, or wanting to own land. For most of us it's part of our history, and it's part of something you can't do without. If we look at the history of a woodlot owner, we look at a woodlot owner as a small farmer, a person who would be relating to fisheries.

So when we look at a woodlot owner we look at the diversity of things. We have to look a little at the history, because when we try to change history, we do change things that do not relate or work too well with forestry. If we look at history, over the last 50 to 75 years of the forestry, when we look at private woodlots, we would have a woodlot to get probably 20% to 30% of our revenue each year, and then we would have other income to completely meet the needs of the family for that year.

• 0930

The woodlot is one of the most important things for most New Brunswick families. Some of them might not own the woodlots, but what happens on woodlots does affect them tremendously.

We have a lot of people, especially on the Miramichi, who would work at the pulp mill. The wood coming from woodlots, which is about 30% of the wood that feeds the mill, would come from private woodlots. So it is affecting most people on the Miramichi, and I think that if we look at New Brunswick, it does touch most New Brunswickers.

One of the things it has done for me is help me balance my income so I was able to educate my family. My family were, as you know for the average earner, in a situation where it could have been very difficult to educate them. But with my woodlots I was able to find extra income—with my kids working with me in my woodlot—so that we were able to educate them through university.

We'll look a little further at the history of woodlot owners and woodworkers. I think we have to look at what has happened in the past in order to try to find out what the situation is today, or why we are here.

If we look at the history of woodlot owners and woodworkers, we'll look back at the early 1960s. In the early 1960s I myself was involved in working in the woods. At an early age I was lucky enough that I touched the last era of the camp, where we had 75 men and we would have 25 or 30 horses to do the operation. So I was lucky enough to touch that era, which was a difficult time—it was very hard work—but still an era that is something we should all remember.

From that era in the early 1960s we saw mechanization coming into the forest sector, especially on crown land. Skidders were starting to come in in the early 1960s. That lasted right until the 1970s. Then the porters came in for a period between the 1970s and the early 1980s. Then we've seen mechanization such as the big harvester.

What that has done is create a situation where it has displaced an unbelievable amount of woodworkers. Many of these woodworkers were private woodlot owners.

As we have mentioned before, they were getting probably 60% to 70% of their income working on crown land. So for these people, what happened during the period of the 1960s right up to the 1980s was a displacement where they lost their income.

Most of them had woodlots. Then what they had to do is come in on their own woodlots and try to feed their family. Previous to that, for probably a history of 50 or 75 years they were harvesting their property for about 20% to 30% of their income. But now they were forced to find money to feed their family, which was an increase from 20% to 80%, 90% or 100% of their revenue.

So that caused a situation where a tremendous number of woodworkers had to go to private land to find an income to feed their family, to try to educate their family. And as you've seen over the last 10 years, that has resulted in a situation, rightly or wrongly, that creates overharvesting on private land.

We know it's wrong; there's no doubt about it. But we have to look at the situation of your having to feed your family.

One of the things most woodlot owners and woodworkers have been very frustrated about was how the federal government participated in this displacement of woodworkers. If we look at what the federal government has done over the last 20 years, they have given a tremendous amount of money for mechanization. The big corporations seized the opportunity to invest in machinery, or get somebody to invest in machinery. This machinery has caused what we have today, or has been part of the cause.

• 0935

Now, we look at this and ask how this relates to fisheries. Well, there's no doubt that it has to relate to fisheries. Being involved as a guide and an outfitter myself over the last 30 to 35 years, I've spent a tremendous amount of time on the salmon rivers of the Miramichi. I have a camp on the northwest Miramichi. I don't want you gentlemen to feel bad, but this evening I'll be fishing salmon from 6 p.m. to dusk. Don't feel bad about it, but I tell you, it's a beautiful place to be.

But what I'm trying to relate to you is that the overharvesting has created a situation where it's bound to affect the fishery. It has affected it, and it will continue to affect the fishery.

So I'm not really going to try to continue with too much of a speech, because I think we have lots of politicians who will do the speeches and will try to relate some of the facts.

As we go on further in these discussions, then we will try to find some ways of trying to find some meaning to this. We will try to see how we, the woodlot owners, and government, federal and provincial, can work together to find other ways to try to remedy or help reduce some of the problems we have caused relating to the woodworker and the fishery.

I don't know if I've been very clear to you, gentlemen, but I hope that in general you have an understanding of what we're trying to relate to.

As the discussion continues in this meeting, I hope we can have questions that will be related...and try to find some discussion on where we can try to work on some problem-solving for the future.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Comeau.

Now I think we have Mr. Landry.

Ms. Inka Milewski: We have Denis Landry, the MLA. I'm not sure which county he's from, but he's the local representative.

Mr. Denis Landry (Member for Centre-Péninsule, Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick): Centre-Péninsule is part of the Acadian Peninsula. I am a boy from a family of 11 kids. We were raised on a farm.

I was a logger—not a lawyer, but a logger—for 17 years of my life. I used to work for a big company. We were unionized, and everything was going well until mechanization appeared.

We were kicked out in 1991. I'm not going to read everything that Jean-Guy said, but I will try to explain to you how my people feel due to being kicked out of the forest, replaced by machinery.

In 1991 we were kicked out of the forest. It was a really sad thing that happened to 200, 300, 400 people. I don't know how many people in my region were kicked out at the same time as I was. But we fought hard against mechanization.

I was thrown into jail. I went through a big trial. I tried to convince the company and government at that time that there was a place for men in the forest.

That mechanization did this. It kicked men out from crown land, where there were all kinds of regulations, we were controlled by the natural resources department, and everything was under surveillance. We were trying to follow the rules as well as we were taught.

But the thing that happened is that they sent us on committees, they were trying to put those people back into schools, trying to get them new skills. Where I used to work, at that time in 1991, the average age was 49 years old. It was a pretty high average age. But all those people were not able to get back into schools, and some of them didn't even know how to read. They went on welfare. There was no way out for them.

• 0940

One of the most important things that happened was that even the contractors who were on crown land at that time found other ways to cut wood. They came to their neighbourhoods and cut on private land. They were buying land from old fellows who owned private lands with beautiful woods on them. They were buying that, telling them that their sons were out in other regions working, and for them the best thing to do was to sell their land.

They started to buy, and those loggers who had logged the jobs on crown land were working and are still working for those contractors. It's a bad, bad thing that happened. They overcut crown land. They are overcutting crown land.

I'm going to tell you something: those guys, who I know very well, were happy to work for a big company. Now they are on private land, cutting and overcutting for those contractors, because for them there's no other place to work.

When those people were kicked out of crown lands, a lot of people were thinking they would be back on other jobs, but that was not the fact. They're overcutting private land, and there's not that much surveillance. They're cutting near the creeks, the rivers, and everything.

I'm going to tell you something: the Acadian Peninsula now is in a really bad situation concerning woods on private lands. The thing is I don't know what's going to happen in the near future. We're trying to work something out here in the province. I'm part of government now and I'm trying to explain to somebody that there will be plenty of jobs in the forests of New Brunswick if somebody wants to hear people out. Instead of putting big mechanization in forests, plenty of work is still available there, but we'll have to use smaller mechanization.

Instead of going further, I'm going to have to listen to the other people who have something to say. I will be available to answer any questions you have.

The Chairman: Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Landry.

We are now going to go to a couple of witnesses we have here in the committee room with us. We have Mr. Ron Langdon and Mr. Bruce Osmond from the Coalition of Community Groups in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. So I would ask Mr. Langdon, who's been intimately involved with loggers all through the years, to begin.

Ron, it's been a good many years of involvement for you. Do you have the same observations as Jean-Guy and Denis had as far as mechanical harvesters are concerned? Could you make a statement, if you so wish?

Mr. Ron Langdon (Coalition of Community Groups): Being from Newfoundland, we consider Newfoundland unique. The woodlands in Newfoundland operate a little differently from the way they operate in other Atlantic provinces. Most of our woodlands have been operated by multinational companies such as Abitibi-Price, Bowater—now it's Kruger—and Abitibi-Consolidated over the years. Whereas in a lot of places, such as New Brunswick, they have woodlots, private farm lands, and a lot of crown operations, Newfoundland is very small in crown operations. We are mainly governed by multinationals, and we're unionized in the major part. We have to get a background on where we're coming from on that.

We should compare to the Newfoundland fishery. We can get a lesson from what has happened in the fishery: the destruction of the fishery through technology, the devastation that has come to our rural communities, and the sudden out-migration of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to other parts of the country to try to find work.

We want to note some kind of similarity with what is happening with mechanization in the forest lands, because of the control of multinationals in Newfoundland. Right now we are at 50% mechanical harvesters, and in five years, both paper companies intend to be at 100% mechanical harvesters. It's totally devastating our communities.

• 0945

We've had enough pain through the loss of our fish rights in the rural communities, and the logging communities are tied in with the fishing communities; they are all connected. The fishery and the loggers are usually connected to the forestry, and we have about 50 to 80 communities that are being presently affected by mechanical harvesters.

The reason I'm bringing up that point is it's the technology that has destroyed the fishery, and we don't know who to blame. There are all kinds of people who we say are responsible for it, and probably the federal government is partly responsible, and some of it is our own fault as well. What is happening in the forestry is going to be the same thing unless people learn to listen to those who are working in the industry and know what the industry is made of—the laypeople who are involved and see the problems in the forest land and see the effects and the impacts on the environment.

You need to begin to listen to people who are involved with it in day-to-day practice, rather than being specialists who read things in books and really don't understand where people come from. That's very important, and that's why we're here today. We're so concerned.

We're economically deprived as it is, and we're saying to the government that this is an opportunity for the Newfoundland government to take the bull by the horns and do something in the forest industry and try to restrain what is happening in the forest harvesting practices that are taking place in the province of Newfoundland. Broaden your focus and try to create other things. Rather than our forests just existing for those huge companies to make paper, they exist mainly for the people of the province. That's why I'm saying it's similar to what happened in the fishery.

From a personal experience point of view, if you want me to give some examples of some of the impact on the waterways—and I think that's why we're here... There's no concern. There's a total lack of concern in Newfoundland by these companies over what effect it has on the little streams and brooks, on where the water flows and the silt, out into the rivers, out into the salmon rivers, and out into the ocean. In Newfoundland there's a total lack of concern.

It's mostly some kind of cosmetic public relations thing, where if you can see it from the roadway, it's perfect, but behind the scenes we've seen places where... Two years ago I worked in a logging camp—and we still do have logging camps in Newfoundland, which we don't want to get rid of; we still want to maintain the presence of logging camps in Newfoundland—and these mechanical harvesters worked on the side hills.

In Newfoundland we're mainly bogs and brooks. There are thousands of ponds and lakes, and 60% of our land is soft bog land. These machines work around the soft areas and cause huge ruts in the land mass in the processing and forwarding of the wood out from the mechanical harvesters. They clear-cut the side hills around lakes and ponds, because that's where most of our wood grows. The biggest of our wood is around hills, lakes, and ponds.

They cleared the mountains around the lake, around the camp, and we had a flash flood of rain. All the silt washed out into the lake, and trout began to wash up on the shores. The environmental group, which, if I want to be fairly frank... Since the companies have controlled the forestry in Newfoundland since 1906, the forestry and the company are one and the same, and so is the environmental group. There's no difference among them.

A private group has been working together for the production of paper in Newfoundland, without anyone speaking up on the impact of harvesting practices. There's no land use management. There's no indication of what damage they're doing to waterways or whatever. So now it's about time we looked at these issues and tried to study the impact of what is happening.

We had this flood of rain and it killed the fish. The environmental group came up and checked it out and said it was some kind of bacteria or something in the water, and there was never a word said about it. That's the type of thing that takes place in the building of roads into the woodlands. You may see one little silt sheet somewhere on a side road, but most of our muddy waters run down to the little brooks and out into the major brooks and the rivers, where it's causing damage.

• 0950

From a layman's point of view. I think there should be some kind of a moratorium, some kind of a system in place, until we find out the impact of the mechanical harvesters on our little brooks and fishways and ponds and lakes and rivers, until we find out what these things are really doing.

Are we going to wait until we're in the same position as we were with the fishery? Are we going to wait until the horse is out of the barn? This is the thing we're trying to tell the government.

Why rush in and suddenly bring in 100% mechanical harvest, clean out our forests, destroy our streams and our fish stocks and our habitat? Then we'll go and study the impact, and then it's too late. I think it's very important that we get involved right away.

As far as watersheds and buffers are concerned, we can make larger watersheds and larger buffers that can protect our fishways and use manual cutting to increase work in Newfoundland, because we're sorely in need of work since we've lost the fishery as well.

That's why we're here today, and I hope my friend Bruce speaks from his heart. We're not technicians and we're not specialists; we're just people who are concerned about what's happening in the forest land.

I will be open to any questions later on, and probably there are more specifics that you would like to ask. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Langdon.

Bruce.

Mr. Bruce Osmond (Coalition of Community Groups): Thank you. I am a logger and not a lawyer, as you will probably be able to see before I'm finished. I've been a logger for approximately 22 years, the past 17 years with Abitibi-Price.

Over the past 17 years, I too have seen a decline in the environment due to harvesting our forests, overharvesting in a lot of cases. The overharvesting on our crown lands, according to our forestry regulations in Newfoundland, is now 100%. Our smaller communities—and I might add here that we are a race of people who thrive on smaller communities—are impacted by the loss of a lot of these jobs.

We lost about 60 jobs in my area alone, in the Notre Dame Bay area, three years ago when the government pumped $2.2 million into a firm out there to supply 40 new jobs, plus keep the existing 170 jobs that they already had. They took the loggers on for about three to four weeks, I guess, until they got their money from the government, and then they laid them off and they're still off now.

So we have to try to come up with something, some way or means to get those loggers back to work, and the only way we can do it is to cut back on our mechanical harvesters. These mechanical harvesters are devastating our forests. They're just going in, as Ron said—he practically summed it all up—and they're tearing everything right to shreds, and it's going to be too late probably four or five years down the road, if she lasts that long.

Getting back to one of the statements that I think Denis made just now, talking about his fishing lodge, I too have a cabin on one of our prime salmon areas in Notre Dame Bay, and I won't be salmon fishing this evening because I don't think we're going to be allowed to keep any this year. It looks that way, anyway. If we do get the chance, it will probably be one salmon.

I will relate one incident. A couple of years ago they built a bridge across the main stream up at Rocky Pond, where my cabin is. I left work on Friday evening and went home and went up to do some fishing. When I got there, it was the same as if you had poured chocolate milk into the stream. Where they had put the bridge across, they had no silt screens at all in the smaller rivers, and it ran right out into the pond. So I had to turn and come back out of there, and I didn't get my salmon fishing in in that area at the time. So that's one thing with the environment part of it.

But I want to reiterate to Mr. Baker and the rest of you people here that we certainly have to do something about the mechanical harvesting situation in our area. It's about time we do something. We can't wait until the government does a study or whatever; we have to do it now. I think the time has come and the time is now.

• 0955

One of the Liberal statements in one of the elections in Newfoundland a few years ago was: The time has come and the time is now. The time has come for us to step in and try to get those loggers back on the ground and get this mechanical harvesting out of our forests, or at least a balance with mechanical harvesters and the loggers.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Before we go to questions, Mr. Osmond, could you explain something to the committee in regard to the logger versus the mechanical harvester.

There was a regulation brought in recently concerning the use of base oil in chainsaws—Do you recall that, where they said, look, you can't use base oil? In other words, you change the oil in your car and you then use that oil to operate your chainsaw. It was considerably cheaper than using the standard oil you use in a chainsaw.

A regulation came in that said the loggers weren't allowed to use base oil because of some reason. Compare that to the destruction that you would see around our rivers and streams by mechanical harvesters, as far as spillage is concerned.

Mr. Bruce Osmond: With reference to the base oil, chain oil is more of a sticky lubricant. Base oil is a totally lighter oil. If you're using base oil as chain oil, really, you're going to ruin the chain on you chainsaw anyway, because the oil leaves the bar too quickly and it's just thrown right out on the ground. That's one of main reasons why they want to get rid of the base oil.

They're coming in—this year, I think—with a biodegradable chain oil as well. So if you get away from this chain oil thing and get back into the biodegradable oils, I think we're a step forward.

The Chairman: Now compare that to mechanical harvesters.

Mr. Bruce Osmond: Mechanical harvesters go through about, oh, I don't know, probably 15 gallons of chain oil per shift, somewhere around that, whereas I can work a week on about five litres of chain oil.

The Chairman: So that's why you see a big heavy residue of oil where you see mechanical harvesters.

Mr. Bruce Osmond: Exactly.

There was an incident when I was subforeman for Abitibi for one of the work seasons. We worked down in the good years on Abitibi limits. One day in particular, I filled my truck up with hydraulic oil, fifteen cans. That's fifteen 20-litre cans of hydraulic oil for that day. I had to return to the campsite at noon for more hydraulic oil. So where's that oil gone, you ask, right? We had a major hose break in one of our loaders. In a matter of probably 30 seconds to a minute or a minute and a half, we had 45 gallons on the ground. One of the main hoses broke from the pump to the loader.

The Chairman: So there's no question in the loggers' mind that as far as pollution is concerned, mechanical harvesters are really terrible.

Mr. Bruce Osmond: Oh yes. With the hydraulic oils, too, probably some of the guys who have worked around logging will know that the hydraulic oil tank in skidders is very small. It's probably 8, 10, 15 gallons at the most, whereas on a harvester, if you have a break in a main line, you're probably talking 40 to 45 gallons—bang, one shot.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Osmond.

Now we'll go to questions, and we have the major political parties here today. We have the Reform Party of Canada, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party of Canada, and of course, the Liberals, the government.

For questions, we'll go first of all to the Reform Party, and Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Thanks, George.

I'm not a lawyer either. I'm actually a forester. I spent 20 years in coastal forest industry in British Columbia. There's not a lot of mechanization yet, because we're still largely into line cable yarding and so on, but there are some similarities and we have a lot more hydraulic equipment than we used to have.

• 1000

Mr. Langdon was talking about the difference between forest practices in Newfoundland and Labrador and the maritime provinces. I know they're obviously quite different in British Columbia as well.

I think one of the questions this committee wants to concern itself with is what is the role of federal fisheries, DFO, in terms of forest practices in your jurisdictions. I didn't get a clear picture of that this morning, so I guess that's sort of where my questioning would be.

My background and experience tells me that DFO has people involved in habitat and people involved in enforcement. We had a full referral process on private land logging and crown land logging wherever there were fisheries concerns dealing with salmonids, in particular, anadromous species, the salmon species. There really wasn't a wheel turned or an approval granted until that occurred. And very often they were the most demanding agency, above and beyond the provincial agencies and so on. Even though the province set the tone for almost all other land use activities, anything around streams or water courses or water tables was DFO. Does it work that way where you are? It doesn't sound like it.

The Chairman: Do you wish...?

Mr. Jean-Guy Comeau: I'd like to make a comment. I'm Jean-Guy Comeau, from New Brunswick.

In the last 15 years we have seen laws in the province that have helped these situations in relation to bad forestry practices and not being very sensitive to the environment or the stream. The laws in New Brunswick relating to crown land and private land have been very strict. And we have seen a dramatic improvement of the conditions that existed 25 years ago.

If we were to try to take the harvesters out on the reasoning that they are creating a tremendous amount of pollution or endangering the environment, I don't think we would have much of a foothold in the door in that area, because things have improved. The laws relating to harvesters and the DFO are very strict in what I've seen. That includes private land. I know that as a woodlot owner I'm watched very closely, and I appreciate that. If we're going across a stream, you'd better have the right permit, and you'd better do the right thing.

So in relation to mechanization and pollution to the streams in New Brunswick, I think there's been a great improvement. If we were to fight on the basis of removing the machinery relating to pollution, I don't think we would have much of a fight there that would make sense, because things have improved.

One of the issues relating to harvesting with machinery in New Brunswick is jobs. And one of the things these harvesters do is create clear-cut. They are very heavy machinery. You can complain more about the damage they do near the stream. And when I'm talking near, I mean you could be talking 300 yards, 500 yards, or maybe more than that. If you look at the regulation, it says you cannot go near a stream closer than 100 metres, around 300 feet. So you could still be within the limit of the boundaries of the law that would tell you you have to be within a certain distance, and yet you could cause a tremendous amount of damage.

One of the things I've been able to do because I have a woodlot that touches the northwest Miramichi is over the years I've been able to look at how things affect the river. And if you only go 300 feet or 400 feet to a river and just assess that, you're not going to get a true picture of what is going on. I have little springs on my woodlot that are over 300 metres from the river, yet I can take you right to the river where these little springs are coming out in the bank. Now, if I go and work there I'm going to be well within the limit of the law, but I'm going to be creating damage that's eventually ending up in that river.

• 1005

If you go close to a big spring and you cut all around that spring, create a big clear-cut, that spring eventually is going to dry up. Eventually that little cold water that was coming in the northwest river where all these little parr... I do a tremendous amount of study in the summer looking at where the little parr are. I have a thermometer with me and I take the temperature of the water. When I have certain little pockets of the river that seem to have a lot of little fish, I'll go there with my thermometer and I'll check the temperature of that local area.

One of the things I found on the northwest Miramichi is depending on the time of the day, if you take the temperature at eight o'clock in the morning, you will find that temperature could be about 54 degrees. That will hold right up to maybe eleven o'clock, twelve o'clock. But from twelve o'clock to three o'clock that afternoon, that temperature can rise up to 70 degrees, the temperature of the water. Now, these little springs that feed the main river—this is why you have all these little localities where you're going to see all these little fish.

Relating back to what we said about the clear-cut with the big type of harvesting, when you create these big clear-cuts you affect and touch these springs. When you harvest manually you can be more conservative of how many trees you have to remove in order just to move a machine around.

I hope that what I'm trying to explain will give you some idea that when we have an approach to try to remove the machinery to create jobs and preserve the environment, what we have to focus on, depending on the province, is the real problem, rather than some of the problems that are only happening in some of the provinces. It appears that in Newfoundland the problem is much greater in relation to controlling pollution deriving from the machinery itself than we have in New Brunswick.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Inka, would you like to add to this question of jurisdiction that Mr. Duncan...?

Ms. Inka Milewski: Yes, I would. I would specifically like to speak to that.

Perhaps in the past, the last standing committee hearing... I think perhaps government is finally coming to terms with the message that I think viewers of Sesame Street have known for some time, and that is that everything is connected to everything else in terms of the ecosystem. It should come really as no surprise that forestry practice affects fisheries, aquaculture affects fisheries, coastal development affects fisheries, pulp mill effluent affects fisheries. How DFO is going to grapple with this interconnectedness is a challenge.

I know that DFO has an ocean strategy that is calling for integrated management. We're a little concerned that really what this means is managing economic interests—how you slice up the landscape or the seascape among the economic interests—and it's really not managing for ecological sustainability.

I'm here to tell you that we do not want DFO and the federal government to lessen its control and responsibility for fisheries management. We want you to look after the common good. We don't want public-private partnerships; we feel that's a road that is really disastrous. We don't want you downloading these responsibilities on the provinces, which have no capacity to deal with these problems. That's not to say you shouldn't work with the provinces and you shouldn't work with industry, but I think the enforcement, the science that needs to be done, and the management has to stay with DFO. And it really has to be a lot tougher. You know, you're going to have to start prosecuting. There are prosecutable offences out there.

I guess my message here is that we don't want DFO to lessen its control over fisheries management.

The Chairman: Mr. Langdon, did you want to add anything to that?

• 1010

Mr. Ron Langdon: I don't know who has jurisdiction in Newfoundland—I guess both—but we're not advocating taking all the harvesters out of the province. It's difficult, but we're looking for a balance right now. We're saying enough is enough. We have come to 50%. Let's stay there and try to define where these machines can work, when they can work, how wide of a buffer zone is needed for watersheds, and all that.

If we leave larger areas around the sensitive areas for the manual cutters rather than for the machinery, these mechanical harvesters can find lots of work in Newfoundland in the wintertime. Sometimes brooks are involved in the winter. What happens in the spring, as everyone should know, is the streams are a little high and the little brooklets are high. All of a sudden during the summer you get three or four weeks' dry weather and they settle back to almost nothing. Then a machine goes in and can't see where the brook is, or nobody in forestry knows where the brook is, and travels across the thresholds. Then next spring, the brook is at a certain level again, and these are all little fish habitats.

Newfoundland is unique in the fact that we're usually 10 years behind in technology. It usually moves from west to east. Environmental studies have been done in B.C. and practices are changing in B.C. because you've experienced the problems with the environment. Why are we rushing in like fools to go to 100% mechanical harvesters, when we'll find ourselves saying, 10 years down the road, “Oh, yes, we have the same problems they had in B.C. and we can't solve them”? Why not look at what is happening across the country?

I didn't get to the forestry conference in Ottawa a little while ago, but I have the study on the B.C. forest practices and the agreement between the government and the industry to try to create jobs in the forestry, and I'm sure the environment is a very important part of that. I'm sure we can learn from other provinces.

It's very important that we look at ways to protect the areas—not get rid of them altogether, which I'd like to do, personally. I'd like to have every one of them leave the province. Each one of these replaces about 15 men on the ground, and we can't really afford that anyway.

Another fact I was going to mention before is that they approached us about the spray for the sawfly infestation in western and part of central Newfoundland, as to whether they should use dylox. It's not registered in Newfoundland, but apparently it's been approved by the federal government. We can't see how they can spray even limited areas without this fine powder or dust of dylox, which is very toxic to fish, animals, and birds... Wherever they spray it, they'll kill everything that's there.

Because of the way we're surrounded with water—ponds, lakes, and streams—there's no way this company can spray the forest for this sawfly without affecting the fish in the ponds and lakes. It's a very serious situation, and I don't think we should permit it. I suppose it's a provincial thing and we can only speak up and try to find some way to prevent it, because apparently it's a nerve agent as well. They say it's been used on wheat and stuff on farm land, but it's not so much around waterways, and that's what we're concerned about: that it will go into the fish ponds and lakes.

The Chairman: Do you have a short question, Mr. Hilstrom? Then we'll go to the government side.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): I have a short one, and maybe the MLA could comment just briefly.

On the overharvesting of the forests and all the provincial regulations—and I don't care what party you're from—do you feel the provincial government has enough regulations in place in New Brunswick or wherever to adequately regulate the forestry practices now?

Mr. Denis Landry: We have all kinds of regulations, and it's really strict, but I'm not going to say the opposite of what Jean-Guy just said about being watched on private land. In my region, a rural region, I saw awful things happen. I saw skidders hauling wood across a small creek—not a river, but a small creek. They were crossing into the water, not on the bridge, because there was no bridge. Sometimes contractors do that without surveillance, and the natural resources department can't watch them all.

• 1015

If we're talking on a general basis, yes, the regulations are pretty good here in New Brunswick, but there is more to do, and our government will have to listen to people more, as far as we're concerned, in all kinds of ways.

In my region, people were really depending on the forest for a living. They still are, but it's really...

When I was fighting against mechanization in the forest, as a social activist, I was not defending those machineries. I was trying to convince the government at that time—I was not part of the government in those years—I was only trying to make somebody understand the forest would have to be protected. I was saying at the time that if the companies continued to cut the wood at the speed they were going, the province would be out of wood in 15 years. I was saying that in 1991. Now they're saying that in maybe 2005 the province won't be able to provide all the wood that the mills will need at that time.

It was mentioned that I was a wingnut at that time. A wingnut here, if I may say so, is kind of a fool. These days the same fool that is listening to all kinds of people is happy, because everybody is seeing the same thing. I'm going to tell you something: it's not really easy to be replaced by mechanization in the forest.

To answer your question, the regulations are pretty good, but there is more to be added to this.

Ms. Inka Milewski: I wouldn't mind adding a few comments to this.

There's a real danger here that we are missing the bigger picture. I alluded to it in my presentation. I have seen maps where sometimes the minimum buffers around the streams are there and sometimes they're not. But if you have, behind this buffer, a 100-square-kilometre clear-cut, that buffer is going to be useless. So it isn't just about putting buffers and culverts and bridges across streams; it is really about the entire forest ecosystem.

I alluded to this study that began in 1964 in the United States in a watershed area that looked at the impact of clear-cutting. Changing the forest complex and changing the forest dynamic, the hydrology, has an impact.

Picture this. Picture your province, wherever you live, and take every river system and every stream and just have a little 100-metre row of trees along the edge, and behind that you have clear-cut. Nobody can convince me, and the science is not there to convince me, that this is going to be effective in protecting those streams. The overwhelming landscape effect on those streams is enormous.

So we really need to look not only at the way we harvest but at the landscape to see exactly how that impacts on the aquatic ecosystem.

The Chairman: Thank you.

I just want to remind the committee that we only have 15 more minutes left on the particular subject we're dealing with. Then we have to go to some motions that members are presenting to the committee in future business. So we'll go next to the mover of the motion, who introduced this subject to the committee, MP Charles Hubbard, for questions, and then we'll go to one of the opposition parties after that.

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thank you, Chairman George.

I'm from the Miramichi, and the Miramichi is very well represented this morning, along with the Acadian Peninsula—and certainly not by a wingnut, Denis.

• 1020

We were very pleased to get your information, Inka, as it related to the ecology and the environment, and of course with Jean-Guy in terms of the great self-trained ecologist. I was very interested in the concept of nutrients in terms of water temperatures, and, Jean-Guy, you brought this fact up.

As you know, George, the salmon, like other fish species, move largely with moons and with other natural concerns that affect their life cycle, and water temperature is one of the main points. With that of course we find in the Miramichi today that in the summer periods the water temperatures, especially in July and August and even in September, are very high. As a result, the salmon don't migrate up the rivers, and of course it affects the whole system.

So we do appreciate the information we've received this morning, and the fact that the major mechanization, Denis, that has gone on in New Brunswick and across Canada—and I guess, Ron and Bruce, with Newfoundland—has greatly affected our economy.

It's sometimes difficult, Mr. Chairman, to see our very government giving tax incentives to large companies to buy large machines that put people out of work, and in the Miramichi and throughout northern New Brunswick, and especially the Acadian Peninsula, thousands of people have been out of work in the last 10 or 15 years as a result of these big harvesters. You mentioned, Ron, 15 people. I have figures indicating it's as high as 30-some people who lose their jobs to one machine.

As politicians, we have to be concerned, Mr. Chairman, with the economy of Atlantic Canada, and I think probably that of other places like northern Ontario too, and about machines that have driven people away from the very basis of what their economy and what their work habits have been. Small communities have lost their vitality as a result of this destruction.

Anyhow, in terms of the information we received this morning, we'd like to thank the group for coming.

Perhaps we might want a little bit of further information, Inka and Jean-Guy, in terms of this idea of habitat and nutrients, and the fact that many of our waterways rely upon small springs and cold waters to enable that very basic concept of life for the fish to survive, and the idea of siltation. Perhaps you might like to make some further comments on those concepts.

Ms. Inka Milewski: I do have actually a copy of the brief, which I gave to your assistant here on the Miramichi, Mr. Hubbard. So I have that, and I can provide a lot of the scientific evidence that supports this notion that when you change the forest landscape, the nutrients, which are supposed to be trapped in the soil... Basically, when you have a rain, they simply flow off; they really run off, they roll off the landscape and into the streams, where you have a heavy sediment loading. This sediment loading not only affects the temperature, it changes the oxygen level and it actually provides a substrate for any possible diseases that could be transmitted from the animals and it stresses the fish in the rivers.

So there is this whole problem of what's happening to the nutrients that are in the soil.

The other thing I might also mention is that when a landscape is denuded and it exposes rock outcroppings, we do know that with the weathering of that rock—there's mercury found in all of these rocks—the mercury loading that is done into streams and rivers also increases and we have mercury levels that are high in some of our freshwater species.

There is atmospheric mercury, but we must remember that mercury is being naturally weathered off rocks, and as we expose more and more of the landscape, this rock base, to weathering, we'll find more of it accumulating in our fish. Of course, we already have in New Brunswick health warnings that certain species of trout and other fish should not be consumed by pregnant women. It gives restrictions on how much fish should be consumed.

There is an enormous body of evidence to show what happens when you change the forest landscape through clear-cutting or tree farms. We just need to bring it to bear on the decision-making. I don't know why the management of freshwater fisheries has not incorporated this information.

• 1025

Mr. Jean-Guy Comeau: I'd like to make a comment here.

When we look at the evidence we have, the science evidence is there. One of the things we have to try to do now with the evidence we have is to really look at the total and how this affects lives.

When we look at what needs to be done with the salmon, we know exactly what needs to be done. Look at the Miramichi. The salmon have to go through a tremendous amount of private land to get to the spawning ground. Some of the private land is right up in the spawning ground itself.

We talked earlier about the loss of jobs. This is where we try to deal with the real situation of trying to feed your family and protect the fish. How do we put the two together? This is one of the most crucial things we have to look at. We can have the best of laws, we can have the best of everything, but you still have to have the people to do the things that need to be done.

Take for instance a private woodlot owner who has 100 acres of land and he has a beautiful salmon river going through his property. We know what has to be done to protect the river, so now we have to find ways whereby the woodlot owner doesn't have to cut his property to feed his family. It all boils down to survival of the fish, survival of the family. So we have to put everything into perspective.

When we look at the total situation, we have to—when I say “we”, I'm talking about the provincial and federal government and all agencies and all people who are interested in this plan—find ways whereby everybody can live off this planet. What I mean by this is that right there now, if we look at taxation, I have about 1,000 acres of land and if I die tomorrow my estate is going to be taxed in a way whereby, when the land is transferred to my kids, they're going to have to harvest that land, clear-cut it to pay the tax they owe to the government.

These are real, important issues that are totally contrary to what we want to do in relation to having a forest that will be there, harvested on a sustainable basis. We have to look at all avenues. The tax avenue is one of the most detrimental things you can have as it exists today. The New Brunswick Federation of Woodlot Owners has presented a brief to the federal government, and the minister has replied just lately through his staff that there doesn't seem to be any way they are going to change tax laws.

One of the things I'd like you gentlemen to look at is a paper that's been written, the National Forest Strategy, Sustainable Forests: A Canadian Commitment. Mr. Hubbard, in his position, has the people he can get this report from, and I hope he gets a copy for everyone on the panel so you can really look at it. There's a tremendous amount of information.

The New Brunswick Federation of Woodlot Owners has contributed a tremendous amount of information to this paper. There's no need for me to elaborate on that because it has been very well done in this paper.

In terms of the recommendations we made in relation to taxation, in relation to the federal government's role in helping small woodlot owners find a way of small mechanization on small parcels of land, if the federal government was able to to find a tremendous amount of money for the multinational to get these big harvesters, they should be able to work with us to find some money to help small mechanization on private land that will help select harvesting and go more to select harvesting than the system of clear-cut we have today.

I'm not going to take more of your time. I hope you get this paper, which is the National Forest Strategy. Here you have a lot of information the Federation of Woodlot Owners has presented to the committee looking at that.

Thank you.

• 1030

The Chairman: Thank you, sir.

Mr. Hubbard is going to make sure the committee members get this, and our chief researcher as well, especially from the viewpoint of taxation. It's a very interesting point that all of these harvesters are in fact a gift from the taxpayers of Canada, under our present system of taxation.

We go now to the NDP and Mr. Stoffer from Nova Scotia.

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

Inka, I'm going to put you on my Christmas card list this year. I really appreciated hearing what you've had to say.

I have a couple of concerns. The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development released their report yesterday, and it was condemning of the federal government. I suspect, Mr. Comeau, that things are going to get a lot worse before they get a lot better in terms of environmental protection of our fish habitats and waters and everywhere else.

It's funny, you talk to farmers in central Canada, you talk to fishermen on all three coasts, and you talk to people within the forestry industry—and in my riding I have a few large forest interests as well—and they all say the same thing: that bigger is not better, and it's destroying everything around us and at the same time sucking out government dollars to offset the cost of these huge machines or huge boats and as well displacing ordinary working people. I have always found that disgraceful, and I'm really glad that all of you brought that to our attention this morning.

Mr. Osmond, you said something about a mechanical harvester—that when it has a leak, 45 gallons of oil can go on the ground. You've witnessed that. What did you do about it when you saw it?

Mr. Bruce Osmond: I didn't witness the harvester; I witnessed a loader. That was about 14 years ago. We just sawdusted the area, chipped the area, and dried it up that way.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: What would happen if that happened yesterday?

Mr. Bruce Osmond: Well, the way the provincial government has it now, if you have a spill of over 20 litres you have to call in the environmental crew.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Does that happen?

Mr. Bruce Osmond: I haven't seen it happen, no.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I didn't think it happened.

Mr. Bruce Osmond: I haven't seen it happen, but they're supposed to.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: We heard evidence yesterday from Mr. Herron, who's the MP for Fundy—Royal, that there's one inspector for all of New Brunswick. In a heavy agricultural and forestry industry province of that nature, the Department of the Environment has one inspector for the entire province.

Mr. Comeau, when you said things are improving in terms of the regulations, the regulations may be there, but I don't believe there's any enforcement at all. And even the environment minister said that their goal is to go toward more public-private partnerships in terms of the voluntary aspects of protection and enforcement of their regulations.

Of course I agree with you, Inka: that's not the way it should go.

I'll cut if off now. I do thank all of you for coming this morning to present your information to us. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Stoffer.

We want to thank the witnesses. I wonder if any of the witnesses have a small closing remark to make before we shut down our communications and go to other matters from the committee.

Mr. Jean-Guy Comeau: I would like to make a comment, and I'd like this to be taken very seriously by members of Parliament.

One of the things we have noticed is that the federal government seems to shed all their responsibility and they seem to be giving all the power to the province. Let me put it this way: if you don't notice what you're doing, you're taking Canada and you're shredding it apart. There's one thing you have to realize: that in a small province that hasn't got the financing to do many things, the big corporations have a tremendous amount of power over these governments. So if you don't have the government laws from the federal, if you don't have federal laws, and they are all transferred to the province, it gets to be very difficult to have anything done that affects the people, because corporations... Right now many of the decisions that are taken in the province are done because of the stock market.

Let's not forget what has happened in the last 15 or 20 years: a tremendous number of mergers, in the billions of dollars. So the little government of the province, when you come to talk to a billion-dollar corporation, hasn't got much power to deal.

We have to make sure that at least the federal government stays within the discussion and stays within the boundaries of some of the laws, because the federal government has a lot more leverage. When we look at the total, it has a lot more leverage that it can put on the corporations. In small provinces it gets to be very dangerous when you deal only with the province.

Thank you.

• 1035

Ms. Inka Milewski: I would like to build on that statement and raise a flag about another issue that is related to these public-private partnerships.

Once the federal government downloads to the province, the province downloads to the private sector. And we've found what happened in aquaculture: the province found that monitoring was too expensive and it handed the responsibility over to the private sector. Then when you, as a public citizen, want to get the information on exactly what is the sort of environmental situation around these salmon cages, you find it's proprietary information and you no longer have access to that information.

I do know, for example, that in the offshore petroleum board in Atlantic Canada for Nova Scotia, there is a memorandum of understanding being developed between Environment Canada and DFO to transfer monitoring and regulatory responsibility. And I know the offshore petroleum board does not have the resources to do it. They're going to transfer that to the companies, and again the public will have no access to that information.

The MAI is another example where that downloading of responsibility or privatizing the interests of information is happening.

You must do something to stem this hemorrhaging of public responsibility and public policy.

The Chairman: Thank you, Inka.

Yes, Mr. Langdon.

Mr. Ron Langdon: I'd like to say that it's time for the people, to whom the resources of our province and of Canada belong, to take a major control in what is happening in the resources in their provinces and claim back what has been taken by the companies, the multinationals or whoever has taken it, and make sure that we have a direct input on how our resources are managed and ensure in the forestry industry that a proper and a fair return comes to the people who are involved in the natural resources of our province. That's very important, I think. We shouldn't be subject to control by multinational companies who say this is the way things are going to be done and they have no concern for our communities; it's just do as I say.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Matthews, do you have a closing remark?

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the witnesses in New Brunswick and those from Newfoundland with us in Ottawa that I found this morning to be very informative.

This has become a very high-profile issue in Newfoundland and Labrador. I have to say to the two gentlemen who are here that in the last couple of months it's really become a big issue. I echo the remarks of what others have said, that it's quite ironic when our legislation, both federally and provincially, across this country has become more sophisticated because of the input of interest groups and the influence of interest groups, but we do not have the powers to enforce the legislation because of downloading, because of cutbacks, because of budget restraints, and so on. It's quite ironic that while the legislation indeed no doubt is better, we're far more ineffective in enforcing the legislation.

It's been a very interesting morning, and I want to thank the witnesses for their input. As I say, in our province it's become very high-profile with the mechanical harvesters, with fish habitat, and with anticipated privatization of rivers, and so on. It's really dominating public opinion and public airwaves in the province.

I want to thank you for your presentations this morning.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Matthews.

We want to thank our witnesses for appearing here today. We've heard from the Coalition of Community Groups, Mr. Bruce Osmond and Mr. Ron Langdon from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador; from the province of New Brunswick, from the Miramichi, the Conservation Council of New Brunswick, the president, Inka Milewski; from Northumberland County, woodlot owner Mr. Jean-Guy Comeau; and from the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, a member there, Mr. Denis Landry.

I want to thank all of the witnesses. If we need additional information concerning our meetings concerning this, we may be in touch with the witnesses at a later date. Thank you very much for coming and for giving your testimony to the committee.

Mr. Jean-Guy Comeau: Thank you for having us.

• 1040

The Chairman: Thank you.

The committee now has to move on to a couple of other matters and open the floor to motions. We had some indication from the Reform Party and from the New Democratic Party concerning motions they wanted dealt with before the committee.

The chair also has still outstanding the order in council appointment of Mr. Larry Murray, associate deputy minister. I checked my notes and discovered that we had disposed of this matter some time ago, but I was informed by the clerk and by committee members that we hadn't disposed of it.

I knew, however, that my memory was better than theirs. I checked, and sure enough we had disposed of the matter. I don't think it's necessary for us to bring this up any more. So that's that.

Now, there is one further order in council appointment that I've been notified of—an appointment of Mr. Patrick Chamut of DFO as a Canadian representative to the General Council of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization to hold office during pleasure; and his appointment as well as a Canadian representative to the Fisheries Commission of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, to hold office during pleasure—that's the pleasure of the government.

I'll distribute this to members, and if at a future committee meeting you wish to bring it up and have this person examined, then we will do so. The chair is in the committee's hands.

We'll open the floor now to motions from members.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: I have two motions that I'd like to place. We could deal with them together or separately.

The first one is in reference to observer reports. As you know, this committee has struggled with our attempts to get the observer reports. At one point, through access to information, I guess, the media got hold of observer reports, but they were blacked out to a large degree. I believe this committee is in receipt of those blacked-out reports as well.

I believe this committee wants the unexpurgated versions of those reports. That's been our request all along. I have a personal request for papers in the House of Commons, and I was offered a deal. The deal was that if I removed my request, I would receive the same reports that the media has received, which would avoid their having to be translated, as has to be done when you ask for something through the House of Commons. Well, of course, that was not a deal, because I want unexpurgated reports.

I think this committee has just demonstrated an awful lot of patience, and I think it's time for this committee to take this issue to the House of Commons and say we've had enough. So my motion—

The Chairman: Before you go on, Mr. Duncan, what was the deal? I sorry, I just lost it. You were offered a deal by the department—was that it?

Mr. John Duncan: Yes.

The Chairman: Could you explain what that deal was?

Mr. John Duncan: The net result of the deal would have been that I'd get the same reports that the media got.

The Chairman: Yes; they tabled them with the committee. Those were the ones that were all blackened out. I think there were 3,000 pages.

Mr. John Duncan: We got them anyway, so it was no deal at all.

Out of all of this, I want to move the following motion, and I hope the committee is with me.

I move that due to the fact the committee did not receive the production of unexpurgated versions of the observer reports, although the committee had requested these of the ministry, this matter be reported to the House, and that the House issue an order directing the reports be produced in their entirety within 30 days.

• 1045

The reason I make that motion is as I described. Also, there is precedent for this.

Mr. Chair, in 1991 the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General passed a motion ordering production of unexpurgated versions of the two reports. Not having received them, the committee properly reported the matter to the House and requested that the House issue an order directing that the two reports be produced in their entirety within 30 days. So we're replicating a request that was brought forward, I believe under the name of Derek Lee, who's currently still in the House.

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

Mr. Charles Hubbard: To clarify my own thinking on this, as a member, Mr. Duncan requested this.

Mr. John Duncan: Yes, I have it in Journals. It's a request for papers.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I'm not sure, Mr. Chairman. As a committee we probably should request it if we desire it, rather than going to another level.

I would suggest, Mr. Duncan, that if our committee, through formal request with our clerk, requests this and it's then denied, then we could go—

The Chairman: Mr. Hubbard, let me bring the committee up to speed, and I've not done this. The committee asked the chair to get these reports. I've not ever reported back to the committee, because we haven't had the opportunity to receive a report from the chair concerning this.

I wrote to the minister on two occasions and received a summary of what the department claimed was the catch that was outlined on the observer reports. When I looked at the summary, I found it was incomplete, just from my knowledge of the amount of fishing that takes place under NAFO and inside 200 miles.

The department then came back with a further list of fish that were caught, claiming they had omitted a portion of what they should have supplied to the committee. I then got back to the department and said in writing that the committee wanted the observer reports.

I was then sent back a letter saying the committee cannot get the observer reports, that they are commercially confidential and that these nations consider it to be an invasion of their privacy to have this information given to anybody.

So then, when the department appeared before the committee, they produced 3,000 or 4,000 pages of observer reports that were all blackened out. There were a few lines there that you could read.

I finally got through those 3,500 pages and picked out things that I thought would be of interest to the committee—I'm going to send them to each member of the committee; I just finished it last night, in fact—things like, for example, that all these vessels offshore just throw their garbage overboard, things like that, which I found rather interesting; also, that the vessels that are fishing there are heading back to their ports in Spain—those are the ones fishing inside 200 miles for turbot, for example—when we were informed that these vessels actually went to...

The department is listening to us now on FM radio, and of course they'll now understand that we now know that those vessels went back to Spain, and not to St. Pierre and Miquelon as the department testified before the committee.

But anyway, I'll supply those things to each member of the committee.

That's where we presently stand. Mr. Duncan is moving that the unedited version of these observer reports be given to the committee. So that's the update.

Yes, Mr. Provenzano.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): As one committee member to Mr. Duncan on the motion, I wonder if he would consider putting this on as a notice of motion.

• 1050

I don't necessarily want to vote against Mr. Duncan's motion, but as one committee member and having heard what has been said up to this point, I would feel a lot more comfortable if the matter were put on as a notice of motion. If I have to vote now, my inclination is to vote against the motion, but if it were put on as a notice of motion we could obtain a proper report from you, Mr. Chairman, as to what efforts have been made to obtain this information.

The Chairman: And deal with it in the next committee meeting—is that what you're suggesting?

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: At the next committee meeting, if there's that kind of urgency. But as one committee member, I would appreciate the opportunity to make a considered decision in this regard.

The Chairman: Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Duncan, the request that was made some time ago by Mr. Lee in the previous Parliament—what was the outcome of that? Did he realize the results as he had wished them to be? Was he again denied the—

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you for the question. The minister of the day, Pierre Cadieux, made a deal with Mr. Lee whereby he was shown the documents in question in camera. We've batted this thing around. We've been offered the same deal with this committee.

With all due respect, Carmen, we've been on this thing for months and we've exhausted every opportunity, every option. We've had the minister here. He's had legal opinions. I received a copy of the opinion that he was going on, which basically treated this committee with disdain.

The fact that we were given less credence than someone filing an access to information request in terms of our request—that would be okay and we were offered the same deal, but in this case I believe the public interest is that these go into the public domain, not... If we view these things in camera, we're stuck. We can't say anything publicly, and I think the public interest is not being served. The commercial interest is being placed ahead of the public interest. We heard some very disturbing statements in committee from the minister himself, who said that if we make a request of the commercial interests...I forget how he put it, but basically it will jeopardize the whole observer program.

We shouldn't be entering into agreements with these foreign nations unless we are exerting our basic commandments as to what will be in the public domain, and we don't do it.

The Chairman: Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Further to this question, how will the minister ever positively respond to the kind of changes that need to be taken in terms of the direction if he alone...? And he also would have to see these in camera. How would he respond, given that he couldn't give evidence of that kind of information publicly? How would he make a response to the kind of needs in terms of the catchment and this type of thing, given that this is in camera information? To me this has to be public information so that we can make a public statement based on the information, which then becomes public and shows need for change. I think it has to happen and I think there's been enough evidence.

The Chairman: Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews: What I was going to say has been pretty well said by the other members, Mr. Chairman. There have been some very interesting questions. The minister has consistently said that we could see the reports in camera, but then we can't comment publicly because we would breach the Privacy Act. I believe that's what we've been told. Mr. Steckle's—

The Chairman: It wasn't his ruling. He claimed that it was parliamentary procedure.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Something that we should perhaps try to determine is how are those observer reports from those foreign vessels protected in such a way under the Privacy Act? To me it doesn't sound right that this information, which is compiled by observers on foreign vessels, will be protected in such a way under our Privacy Act that this committee or anyone else can't see it. Something in the ruling or the determination just doesn't fit.

• 1055

I don't think the interpretation is accurate. I think something is radically wrong with the interpretation, with what the minister's been told and with what the minister's told us. How can it be that under the Privacy Act observer reports from foreign vessels, that the commercial activity contained in those reports—that we can't access it. There's something wrong here.

The Chairman: Mr. Lee, whose precedent you mentioned, is a prominent lawyer. He has just published a book on the point that you just raised, as it relates to committees' powers and this particular case. He's offered to appear before the committee to give an opinion on what we should do about this. He offered this to me verbally just the other day when he told me that his book was being published concerning this particular matter.

I got the feeling that Mr. Lee was suggesting what Mr. Duncan is suggesting, but I would of course wait until Mr. Lee, if the committee wished to have him give an opinion—and at the same time, probably an official from Fisheries—on why this is judged to be commercially confidential, although it shouldn't be commercially confidential.

Go ahead, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: A couple of things. We know why the department is saying that these are judged commercially confidential. They're saying it for self-serving reasons. They're saying it because this is the most comfortable position for them to operate from, and because it's consistent with the way the bureaucracy dealt with the previous request in 1991. As I mentioned, I think the deference being shown to this committee is less than would be shown to a member of the public filing an access to information request, and I think that is totally inappropriate. I think this motion should be put and passed. And I think it would be highly appropriate, once that occurs, to have the bureaucracy and Mr. Lee appear before committee.

I think there's no reason for us to hesitate in asking for this motion. I think it would be counter-productive for us not to proceed.

The Chairman: Is there any further comment? Mr. Provenzano made a suggestion that we deal with this at the next committee meeting in order to get an update on the facts regarding the law. Is there any further comment on that?

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Is that a motion from Mr. Provenzano to table it till the next meeting or...?

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I'm just asking him to clarify it. At this point I'm going to vote against the motion. I'm asking the mover of the motion to consider making it a notice of motion.

The Chairman: Mr. Hubbard's question, Mr. Provenzano, is whether you wished to make this as an amendment to the motion, and then this matter will be dealt with at the next committee meeting.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I'll so move.

The Chairman: Moved by Mr. Provenzano that this be dealt with at the next committee meeting. Is there a question or any discussion?

Those in favour of Mr. Provenzano's motion?

Mr. John Duncan: I won't make any more meetings this week.

The Chairman: We will deal with your motion, though. It doesn't matter, as long as you have a replacement.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Mr. Duncan, I'm thinking out loud but maybe the success of this motion being passed unanimously rests on it being passed tomorrow rather than today, and for that reason I would ask that you consider doing it tomorrow. I'm prepared to move today but I'm also prepared to move tomorrow.

• 1100

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's okay, Mr. Chairman, as long as we can have an assurance that we'll have a quorum tomorrow.

The Chairman: Oh yes, we'll have a quorum.

Mr. John Duncan: I'm sure glad you're prepared to think out loud there, Paul.

I'll leave it. Discretion is the better part of valour, I guess.

The Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Provenzano's motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: The next motion is from Mr. Duncan. Then it's Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. John Duncan: I think this one doesn't need much of a preliminary, so I'll just read the motion. I think everyone will be able to follow it.

I move that this committee write a letter in a response to the United States senators who wrote a letter to Brian Tobin on March 31, 1998, regarding the seal hunt, and that the response letter should state that these United States senators should leave the domestic affairs of Canada to Canadians.

For anyone who needs an explanation, I gave the clerk a copy of the letter from the U.S. senators. They are complaining about the sealing activity off the east coast. They're basically saying that Canada should terminate that activity, if I remember it properly.

The Chairman: Shall I put the motion?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Do you have a copy of that?

The Chairman: I think you have copies of it.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Again, I'd ask for one thing to be added to the motion: the response should be framed in diplomatic language.

The Chairman: It could be left to the chairman, and it would be done so.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Well, I prefer that this would be in the resolution.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Who are these senators?

The Chairman: It would be referred back to the committee. How about if I refer it back to the committee, when I do the wording, for approval by the committee before I send it? Is that okay?

The senators were D'Amato, Moynihan, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, John McCain, Carl Levin, and Christopher Dodd. They're very prominent senators.

The motion is that the chairman will draft this diplomatic response and refer it back to the committee for approval before it's sent.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The other day, May 15, the fisheries minister released his northern shrimp allocation of an additional 28,000 tonnes that were allocated through scientific evidence. There is scientific evidence that also indicates that he could have gone up to 35,000 to 40,000 additional tonnes, but he wanted to use conservation methods in his approach.

Unfortunately, New Brunswick, P.E.I., and Nova Scotia were shut out of any allocation of the additional shrimp quotas. What you have in front of you is the list of—

The Chairman: And the Arctic, the Northern Alliance.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, the new Northern Alliance.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: But in front of you you'll see 14 licence holders who have 17 licences. Every single one of those companies already has a northern shrimp allocation. Every single one of the allocations of these companies were increased with the additional shrimp allocation.

The minister is saying that these 14 licence holders used environmental means to preserve the stock. They fished it well, so they deserve an increase.

Unfortunately, it doesn't do anything for economic development for those in New Brunswick, P.E.I., Nova Scotia, and part of Nancy's area, who had asked for a very small allocation.

For example, you'll all recall that Fogo Island Co-operative was here. One of the four principles that the minister had stated as to why the additional shrimp allocations were done was the adjacency principle. That was the conservation adjacency principle.

Fogo Island is in the middle of SFA 6. It's right smack in the middle of that, and they didn't get anything. There wasn't a shrimp to be found, and all they asked for was 3,000 tonnes of that 28,000 additional tonnes in order to keep 300 people working in their co-op. They're right in the middle of that zone, and they were shut out.

ACS Trading in Nova Scotia has written me indicating that they're asking for 2,200 tonnes in order to keep 170 people working in their plant.

• 1105

So the motion that I have is for the committee to write to the minister urging the minister to reconsider the allocation of the additional northern shrimp allocations as per the scientific evidence so that entrants such as Fogo Island Co-operative and ACS Trading may participate in this fishery.

I just used those two as an example. As far as I know, there are six entrants who applied for a total of 14,000 tonnes. One is up in Nancy's area. One is on P.E.I. One is in New Brunswick. Three are in Nova Scotia. So there's still 14,000 tonnes. If you include the additional 7,000 tonnes that they could have gone up to because of the biomass there, you could have given enough for everyone to participate in the fishery and keep a lot of people employed.

So that's basically the motion. It's for us to encourage the minister to reconsider the allocation so that entrants such as Fogo Island Co-operative and ACS Trading can participate in the fishery.

The Chairman: I'm going to go to Mr. Provenzano next. I want to point out to the committee, though, that tomorrow we have the minister and his officials appearing here before the committee on the estimates. Anything could be added.

Mr. Provenzano.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: To the other committee members, do we not need an explanation as to the rationale on this allocation?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: He gave it. Everyone got a copy of it. It was dated May 15. It was sent out to everybody. It's probably in your office somewhere.

It basically says that he said these 14 licence holders that hold 17 licences fished it in a conservative and proper manner so they get 90% of the new TACs there. So they all got increases to their current allocations. And there's the fact that they're adjacent to the shrimp, which is—

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: But I guess what I'm saying is that with respect to the Fogo Island situation, does that not beg an explanation? Do we not want to specifically put a question?

The Chairman: Mr. Provenzano's suggesting, Mr. Stoffer—it's like the last suggestion—that first of all we get an explanation, then we deal with the motion after.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You'll recall, Mr. Chairman, that we sent a letter off from a motion that I passed here when Fogo Island Co-operative was here. We sent the letter off asking for that explanation, and as far as I know, we haven't received that explanation. That was well over a month ago.

The Chairman: I notice, though, Mr. Stoffer, that there are two very loyal and accurate members of the minister's staff in the room with us taking extreme notes. I imagine there would be an explanation tomorrow for that.

Mr. Provenzano, we've waited for a month for that explanation. If we get it tomorrow, I can defer this notice of motion until tomorrow, if you so prefer.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Agreed.

The Chairman: Fair enough.

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chairman, we also have in front of us a list of the 17 licences. I certainly would appreciate our researcher looking into these in terms of the quota for each, the principles involved, the landed value, and also the number of employees provided on the basis of landed catch.

The Chairman: Is this where it's processed on shore as well?

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Hubbard, in no way was I inferring that we take quota away from them. They already have an allocation of shrimp. This is just additional.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I think it would be useful for the committee to know the catch allowed for each of these people, who they are, where the fish is processed, and the landed value so that we on the committee can appreciate it.

It seems rather ironic, Mr. Chairman, that when we look at the landed value of fish for your own province of Newfoundland, despite the cod closure, the landed value has increased practically each year since the closure. So there is a lot of landed value going somewhere, and I would hope the people of Newfoundland are really benefiting from this increase in terms of economic activity.

The Chairman: Of course, this does not count the landed value but the processed value aboard vessels. It would be very interesting for the researcher to find out how many of these 17 corporate licences actually produce anything on shore. I presume that's the reason for your asking. It's a very good point.

Now, Mr. Provenzano has made a motion to defer your motion until explanations by the department and the minister. All those in favour of Mr. Provenzano's motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Now, is there any further business from the committee?

• 1110

We'll adjourn the meeting until tomorrow, at which time we'll be hearing from the minister and the explanations concerning shrimp and other matters brought up here today.

Mr. John Duncan: Is it not the estimates?

The Chairman: Yes, it's the estimates, but the estimates cover everything. The estimates are under the general heading of “you can bring up anything”.

The minister has employees here very loyally taking very accurate notes to make sure he's able to answer the questions tomorrow.

Mr. John Duncan: I won't be here tomorrow, but I'm assuming the committee will ask about the minister's progress in terms of responding to our reports to Parliament so far.

The Chairman: Absolutely.

The meeting is adjourned.