FISH Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 27, 1998

• 1535

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): We'll bring the committee meeting to order. Our order of reference today concerns the main estimates.

While we're waiting for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to appear, we can discuss one of the motions that was put to the committee. I think the motion has been proposed by the Reform Party of Canada.

Mr. Lunn, do you want to reintroduce the motion?

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you. This motion was moved by my colleague John Duncan yesterday, and I'll repeat it for the record.

I move that, due to the fact that the committee did not receive the production of unexpurgated versions of 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 to be produced in their entirety within 30 days.

I'll pass this forward, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: That was introduced by Mr. Duncan. That's a legal term, Mr. Lunn, that I understand means unedited.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Exactly.

The Chairman: I guess it was a lawyer like yourself who probably drew up the motion.

Mr. Stoffer, do you have an intervention?

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): It's not on this particular motion. I have a clarification of a point I made yesterday.

The Chairman: Could you make your clarification before the minister comes?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes. I had indicated to the committee that the 14 licence holders who had the 17 licences for the allocation of shrimp had received 90% of the TAC, and that is actually incorrect. They had received 90% of the TAC in SFA 4, and 10% of the TAC in SFA 6. There are two different zones. I clarified that they received 90% of the TAC. I should have explained it a little further.

So in total, those current licence holders received over 5,000 additional tonnes of TAC out of the 28,000 tonnes that were additional. I just wanted to clarify that for the committee.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Getting back to the motion, which we will adjourn the debate on, I just wanted to ask Mr. Lee a question. He is present with us today and considered to be an expert on this matter concerning this motion, and he is in the process of finishing a book on the subject. Mr. Lee, I wonder if you want to comment on this motion or be available to the committee to seek your opinion concerning where we go from here.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): I'd be happy to work with colleagues on the committee. It's not my opinion that counts; it's really the opinion of the committee that counts. If the committee wishes to obtain documents, it's certainly entitled to do so. I gather that's a matter members may want to take up fairly soon, but not today. I'd be happy to assist with that.

In order to deal with the subject, if I were asked, I would have a five- or ten-minute preamble to set the stage and then get into the nuts and bolts. There isn't time today to do that, I guess.

The Chairman: Could you prepare that five- or ten-minute submission and we could cross-examine you after that?

Mr. Derek Lee: Sure.

The Chairman: Our agreement was when we started the meeting— as soon as the minister arrived—the minister was tied up in the House on a point of personal privilege by a member from the Reform Party—we would go to him for an opening statement and then questions from each of the political parties.

Mr. Minister.

Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being somewhat late.

I'm pleased to be before you once again to consider the main estimates of the department for this fiscal year. I know that all members of this committee share my concern for the action by the department toward conservation of resources that will sustain self-reliant fisheries communities.

Conservation must be the number one priority in all our fisheries management decisions, because if we do not have that sustainable resource we won't have a fishery, and obviously we won't have fishermen or fishing communities.

If I could, I'd like to bring you up to date on some of the developments that have occurred since I last appeared before you on February 19 of this year.

[Translation]

The National Conference of Fisheries Ministers had a most productive meeting in Winnipeg on May 13.

A highlight was the signing of a memorandum of understanding on freshwater research by the government of Canada and the governments of the three Prairie provinces.

• 1540

This agreement provides a mechanism for our four governments to identify common fisheries priorities and to harmonize program operations. We will be working in a new partnering arrangement that will make the most effective use of available research funds.

I'm looking forward to concluding a similar agreement with the province of Ontario.

[English]

Another key development of the meeting was a commitment by the ministers to a freshwater fisheries strategy. Recreational fishery received particular attention at the conference. A national recreational fishing working group was established and a national action plan is being developed to address the social and economic importance of the recreational fishery.

We will have a national recreational fishing conference this fall, somewhere in Ontario, and I have agreed that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will play a facilitation role in this national exercise, with the continued support and participation of the provinces, territories, and the interest groups.

With respect to boating safety, which is related, of course, to recreational fishing, let me note that the federal government has made some important changes to personal flotation device standards, which means that the boating community will have more choices than ever to stay safe and comfortable on the water.

[Translation]

On May 29—the day after tomorrow—the Canadian Coast Guard and the Canadian Safe Boating Council are launching this year's National Boating Safety Campaign. The 1998 campaign theme is "Don't Get in Over your Head." As part of the campaign, we will be promoting a kit of safety information, which will be targeted to small boat operators.

[English]

Sea lamprey control is a matter of interest to committee members. While on the subject, if I may return, indeed, to the freshwater fishery, I'd like to note that the federal government will contribute $6 million in fiscal year 1998-99 to continue the sea lamprey control program carried out by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission on behalf of Canada and the United States. This is an increase of some 15% from federal contributions in the last two years, and I'm sure this increase will be welcomed by the standing committee, which recently passed a motion recommending an increase in funding to the sea lamprey program.

I'm aware that the continuity of the program was an item of keen interest during the committee's recent hearings in Ontario, and I can assure you that the government does remain committed to the eradication of sea lampreys from the Great Lakes. I invite both the Province of Ontario and interested stakeholders to partner with us in this endeavour.

In regard to post-TAGS, addressing the concerns of fishery workers regarding the end of TAGS remains a priority with the government. I am working closely with Minister Pettigrew and my other colleagues to find lasting solutions to this issue, and I'm sure the ladies and gentlemen of the committee are well aware of the many questions that have been asked and the answers that have been provided on this issue over the last few weeks.

With respect to Pacific salmon, less than a week ago I announced two conservation objectives for Pacific coast coho salmon stocks, because the scientific evidence demonstrates conclusively that our wild coho salmon stocks are declining and some are at extreme risk, particularly those from the upper Skeena and Thompson Rivers. Upper Skeena includes the Babine River, which you probably remember hearing about. Thompson River, of course, is a tributary of the Fraser. Current ocean conditions are contributing to the urgency of this matter.

Some chinook and steelhead stocks are also at very low levels as a result of poor marine survival conditions, and they also will require major conservation efforts.

The first conservation objective is zero fishing mortality for those critical upper Skeena and upper Thompson River coho stocks.

The second is that where Skeena and Thompson stocks are not prevalent, I will consider proposals for selective fisheries as long as the risk of coho by-catch mortality is minimal. In other words, the first is zero mortality; the second is near zero.

Those objectives will guide the development of our harvest management plans for 1998 and beyond, and their adoption will have a profound implication for the way we conduct our salmon fisheries. It will mean that all directed fishery for coho is closed.

• 1545

Where conservation permits, first nation fisheries for food, social, and ceremonial purposes will continue as before. Conservation, however, comes first.

Time and area closures in the recreational fisheries will be necessary in some areas. Based on advice from the Pacific Stock Assessment Review Committee, I will not be implementing a marked coho fishery this year. But there will be—and I wish to stress this—opportunity for other recreational fishing in British Columbia's waters this year. There are other salmon species not at the same risk as those coho stocks.

Let me switch now to the commercial fishery. For the commercial fishery, limited salmon fishing based on selective fisheries—I stress the word “selective”—with a full monitoring for incidental catch will be considered. This new reliance on selective fishing represents a different approach to fisheries management, indeed, a very different approach to fisheries management from ever before in British Columbia.

On May 21, I also announced two consultation processes to develop ways to implement those conservation directives.

In one consultation process, we are now soliciting views on the impacts felt by people and communities throughout British Columbia. We want to assist those affected to the greatest extent we can. To that end, representatives from various federal departments will consult with those specific communities and of course with the Province of British Columbia.

Two days ago, the second of these consultation processes began, a three-day stakeholder and community forum, which I believe will be extended because of the number of people who were interested in having their views heard.

We've had about 150 representatives from major stakeholder groups who have come together to discuss the state of the salmon fishery. They have also been discussing selective fishing options—and once again, the word “selective” comes in here—by individual sectors, the implementation of fishing options, and also any adjustment measures that may be necessary for those affected by fishing restrictions. First nations, recreational, and commercial fishing sectors are all represented. The B.C. government has been invited to participate, and I understand is participating.

By the way, with reference to the British Columbia government, in two days' time I will be having a meeting with the Minister of Fisheries for the Province of British Columbia, the Honourable Dennis Streifel, and that will take place in Victoria. That in fact is the formal meeting of the Canada-B.C. Council of Fisheries Ministers.

In addition, I am urging Canada and the United States negotiators of the Pacific Salmon Treaty to produce fishing arrangements for this season that will help us rebuild these resources. The meetings will reconvene in Juneau tomorrow and Tuesday of next week in Seattle, one to deal with the north and one the south.

More action is needed to address structural problems in the commercial fishery, including overcapacity and economic viability, and more action is needed to protect and restore salmon and salmon habitat. We are in fact responding to these concerns.

A week ago yesterday I announced another further $7.25 million for community conservation projects in 1998-99. This is in addition to the $7.75 million that has been allocated over the past two years from the DFO budget. As you know, additional moneys came from the budget of Human Resources Canada.

On the United Nations Fisheries Agreement, in closing I'd like to mention briefly one other very important resource conservation measure, and that is Bill C-27, the implementation for legislation for the United Nations agreement on straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. Bill C-27 paves the way for Canadian ratification of this agreement. I really cannot overemphasize the importance of the United Nations Fisheries Agreement and what it can accomplish in the cause of conservation and protection of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks for this generation and the future.

• 1550

[Translation]

Canada played a key role in the convening of a UN conference which led to the negotiation and development of the UN Fisheries Agreement back in 1995.

It was signed by 59 States and requires 30 States to ratify the agreement for it to come into force. So far, 18 States have ratified the agreement. As a leading force in ocean management, Canada must be among the first 30 States to ratify the agreement.

Bill C-27 proposes to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act to bring the UNFA enforcement regime into Canadian legislation. Bill C-27 provides the necessary authority for Canadian enforcement officers to enforce the UNFA regime on the high seas.

The UNFA creates a high seas conservation and enforcement regime for the harvesting of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks by vessels of States that have signed and ratified the agreement. The agreement supplements the 1992 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea which was ambiguous with respect to straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks.

[English]

There have been some misconceptions about the UNFA and Bill C-27. I'd like, if I could, to clear up some of those misconceptions today.

First, under the Law of the Sea, salmon is categorized as an anadromous species, as opposed to a straddling or highly migratory fish—anadromous being, of course, fish that return to fresh water to spawn. UNFA uses the same terms as the Law of the Sea and deals with straddling and highly migratory fish stocks, not with anadromous species such as salmon. UNFA, therefore, does not cover Pacific salmon and could not be used in the dispute over Pacific salmon that we have at the present time with the United States.

Second, Bill C-27 is not removing what is now there. Bill C-27 is a new tool for enforcing international conservation measures on the high seas against vessels of states that are party to the UNFA.

Bill C-27 will allow Canada to implement its obligations under the UNFA and other fisheries treaties to which Canada is a party outside Canadian waters. It does not allow Canada to implement its own regime outside Canadian waters. That now is the intention of the UNFA.

As I stated earlier, the UNFA and Bill C-27 deal with straddling and highly migratory fish stocks. They do not deal with continental shelf rights, which are the subject of existing international law as well as domestic law. Neither the UNFA or Bill C-27 provides for the extension of Canada's exclusive economic zone over its continental shelf beyond 200 miles.

When it is fully implemented, the United Nations agreement will allow Canada to deter unauthorized fishing of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks on the high seas.

[Translation]

Tomorrow, the committee will be briefed on the details of the bill, after which members will begin their review of the legislation. I would urge you to continue supporting this important legislation and the strong measures we are taking to ensure the conservation and protection of our fisheries and ocean resources.

[English]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Now we're going to go to questions. First of all, we're going to go to the spokesperson for the Reform Party of Canada, Mr. Lunn. Then we're going to go over to the Liberal Party of Canada, to Mr. O'Brien, and then we're going to go to the spokesperson for the Bloc Québécois, Mr Bernier. Then, I received notification that Mr. Stoffer wishes to intervene, Mr. Matthews wishes to intervene, and also Mr. Easter wishes to intervene.

• 1555

If Mr. Lunn wishes to divide up his time with his colleagues—

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): How long?

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier is asking how long. Does somebody have a watch here? I hope I don't need a calendar. Let's make it 10 minutes for each turn.

Representing the Reform Party of Canada, Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for coming, Minister. I would like to take up issue with C-27 and some of your statements there. We can get into an in-depth analysis, but I'm going to go specifically to one of the things in the estimates, and that's basically—I'm reading from page 15—that this department has a budget of $1 billion plus.

Leading up to a question, Minister, I want to focus my remarks on the fact that this committee travelled through Atlantic Canada and heard from some 15 communities in four Atlantic provinces. We travelled through British Columbia and heard from 10 communities.

Without exception, in all of these communities we've travelled to, we've heard a total lack of confidence, a total lack of trust of your department and your officials, and very, very strong allegations of not just mismanagement but of abuse of the scientific evidence. In fact, in listening to these communities, we've had people who've come before the committee— about scientists having been ordered by your department in specific instances to have entire sections of their reports removed because they do not fit the political agenda of the government of the day.

There are very specific examples. We can go back to January 7. You yourself wrote a letter to the Telegram stating that there were no foreign fish vessels in our waters fishing for turbot off the coast of Labrador, and your own officials had to retract that. There are numerous other examples that have been expressed before this committee here in Ottawa and also while we were travelling.

We had a group of people representing the Newfoundland government who came before various parties here, and they echoed the same concerns. They were looking for more money for a TAGS II program, and I put it to them, “Had there been more involvement in moving the management of the resource to the resource and more participation from the people where the resource is, would you be here today asking for more money?” They unequivocally said no.

I guess what I'm really suggesting, Minister, is that clearly the system is not working. The scientific branch—their evidence is over and over again altered to fit the political agenda of the government of the day. There's no confidence in the department, and over and over again the people are telling us, “You have to move the management of the resource to the resource”.

I note in your report you have $1.2 million allocated to move the CCG headquarters to Centennial Towers, wherever that is. What I'm suggesting is, would you consider relocating the management of this bureaucracy, restructuring the entire organization so there's some accountability, and moving the management to the resource, i.e. out to the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, where the stakeholders, the provinces, can play as participants? I believe the federal government cannot divest its responsibility, but it clearly is not working in Ottawa. It's not working under the current structure or the senior bureaucrats, and the last time I checked, there were no fish in the Rideau Canal.

Touching on one other short point, on the Pacific salmon dispute, I've heard this resounding from the people of British Columbia. It's nice to hear you say that there are meetings next Tuesday and there are meetings next Thursday. They've come to us over and over again and said, “Where has the minister been for the last year?” They believe there has been nothing done. We know we've seen Mr. Fortier resign and we're back at square one.

They're very frustrated that again we're on the eve of the fishing season and all of a sudden we're starting to get some action by this government as if it's going to actually try to make an effort to resolve this, but it's very difficult with only hours left. Are you willing to take some type of action against the Americans, whether it be transit fees or whether it be preventing U.S. fishing vessels in Canadian waters, in the interests of preserving our salmon stocks? They will no doubt be the big losers.

• 1600

I'd like you to comment on relocating the management issues, on the systemic problems within the department, and also on the Pacific salmon dispute.

Thank you.

Mr. David Anderson: Mr. Lunn, to run quickly through your comments, you keep saying over and over again there are scientists saying they'd been directed to remove sections for political reasons. If you have one instance that has occurred since I've been minister, tell me and let me know what it is. And if any member of this committee has one instance, tell me. Tell me now.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I can tell you, Minister, when we were in—

Mr. David Anderson: Just a second. Will you respond to the question?

The Chairman: Mr. Minister, go ahead.

Mr. David Anderson: Okay. It's fine to say over and over again, “we've heard this”, but I want to have it chapter and verse because I want to look into it properly. It's fine to make generalized observations, and admittedly, if you're in a small fishing port, people may make such observations, but you're paid by the people of Canada to find these things out. You're given staff and money—full-time work, Mr. Lunn—and it's up to you to check these things out.

If you have them, we will definitely look into them, because I don't want to have that happen. I've said time after time that if the scientists have differing opinions, “let it all hang out”. That's the phrase I've used. You're telling me it's happening despite my remarks.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Minister, I have had—

The Chairman: Mr. Minister—

Mr. Gary Lunn: I will respond—

The Chairman: Just a second now, Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Minister, are you finished with the first portion of your answer?

Mr. David Anderson: That's the first one. The quote is “as scientists have been ordered and directed to remove sections for political reasons over and over again”. Evidence, please.

The Chairman: Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I can tell you that when we were in Nova Scotia— And I beg the members to bring up the name of the scientist. Mr. Stoffer could probably help me. The scientist appeared before the committee and testified exactly to that. Dr. Kerry Finley has specifically stated to me that he's prepared to come before the committee and is prepared to swear affidavits that he's specifically ordered by officials that are current now—this may have happened before your time, Minister, but they were under the same officials that are at the head of this department—to remove sections of their scientific findings.

The record speaks for itself. Again, the interest is in the fishery. We can look at the record of the DFO and the fisheries over the last 5 or 10 or 15 years, and it speaks for itself.

What value is the Canadian public, the Canadian fisherman, getting for those tax dollars that are going into this department? It's been a colossal disaster from every single— This is not me speaking, Mr. Minister; this is the fishermen in all of these communities. This is people from the Newfoundland legislature who have agreed with this. And people in the province of British Columbia are completely frustrated by the record of this department. Therefore, they're demanding systemic change.

If this were a corporation, every single top man from the director to the chairman of the board would have been fired years ago. It would never have been allowed to continue. Again, I ask you to look at the record of this department.

Mr. David Anderson: Mr. Lunn, I have a lot of serious problems affecting the fishery, as does this committee. I'm not a historian. What happened 10 or 15 or 20 years ago doesn't really interest me a great deal, other than as it may affect things today. I've asked you for specifics. You tell me that Mr. Finley would come to your committee, which you control, and testify if he's invited. Why didn't you invite him?

Mr. Gary Lunn: He has been invited, Mr. Minister.

Mr. David Anderson: Great. Then we can deal with some of these issues, but every time we try to pin these things down with you, Mr. Lunn, it's like putting jelly on the wall. You just talk about other generalizations.

Now look, that is a serious issue and those are serious charges you've made, and I'd love to look into them if there are instances of that. But I'm not here to deal with some of these concerns that may have existed 10 or 15 years ago. I'm not denying them, because I don't know. I'm simply saying that if you can't produce the information, please don't confuse the current system that we have and take so much time away from the serious issues that affect fishermen today, the real issues of today, as opposed to correcting or not correcting an historical record.

Turning now to where I have been with respect to the Pacific salmon treaty: Olympia, Seattle, Juno, and Washington, D.C. I've had meetings here in Ottawa. I've had meetings with the White House. I was on the phone with the White House within the last week—that was a phone call, not a meeting—but I have also gone there too. You know these things if you've been following the record.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I've been following it, but we're looking for results.

• 1605

Mr. David Anderson: Mr. Lunn, it's easy to say, “achieve total success against the world's greatest power”, when they have the entrenched view they do with respect to states' rights. All I'll say to you is, look at what has been done and the efforts made. We will continue to pursue that as best we can. I think we've had improvement in the situation as a result of the activity this year.

You're elected as a member of Parliament with some judgment, and I think you have to recognize some of the factors we're up against on this issue. I could list them all, but the rest of you know this anyway. I'll send a letter to you listing all the problems, the American legislation and the attitude taken by Alaska, if you have missed these things.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I understand those things.

Mr. David Anderson: I'd be happy to get them for you.

Mr. Gary Lunn: If I can just leave you with one question, at what point are you prepared to take some kind of action or sanction against the Alaskan fishing community for the preservation of the salmon stocks? They're the big losers here. That's what we're facing.

Mr. David Anderson: Mr. Lunn, we'll be talking to the Alaskans tomorrow in Juneau, the capital of Alaska.

The other aspect too, as I think you realize, is you do not signal all your moves ahead of time in negotiations of this type. It's stupid. It's a stupid way to negotiate. So don't expect me to tell you everything I may do in the future with respect to Alaska, Washington State, or the United States generally. Don't expect me to do it. You play your cards at the right time, and when you have the type of cards we do, compared to the type of cards they have, you play them carefully.

The Chairman: Your time is up, Mr. Lunn. We'll have to come back to Mr. Hilstrom in a full round in a few moments.

We'll go now to Mr. Lawrence O'Brien from the Liberal Party of Canada, the member of Parliament for Labrador. After Mr. O'Brien we'll go to the Bloc, Mr. Bernier.

Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, there are a few points of concern I'd like to express today. It's always a pleasure to sit here. I think the last time I sat in committee, you were there. That just goes to show how long it's been since I was here, through no fault of my own, of course. It's just the way things unfold. As I stated to you previously, and as you did previously, you're certainly welcome to come to Labrador. We may be able to do that at some future date.

There are a couple of points I want to mention. The shrimp fishery is of major concern to me, and I would say of major concern to all of us. The point of increasing the quota was a valid one, in certain perspectives. The biggest concern I have is exactly in the context of where you started your presentation—conservation.

Two observers came to me—these are factual points—who are members of the fishing community, particularly in the offshore fleet. They have a tremendous concern about the shrimp fishery. I think it's one you will certainly want to know about, and I know your officials will certainly want to deal with it. Last year—I'm going to talk rough figures—the quota was about 40,000 tonnes, and this year it's in excess of 85,000 tonnes for the northern shrimp.

I've been told that discarding, high-grading, and dumping at sea are major problems, to the point that I've been told by people involved in the industry they fear it may collapse in three years, like the cod fishery collapsed in the late 1980s, early 1990s. You don't want that to happen, I don't want it to happen, and nobody in Canada wants it to happen. We need to start looking at that right way.

I do not agree with high-grading and I do not agree with discarding. I know there is a lot of small northern shrimp and massive amounts are being taken offshore, as I speak to you this very moment. They're trimming off pretty good up there now because the ice has moved off and the boats have moved in. The situation is critical beyond comprehension.

The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien, could you explain to the committee, in simple terms, what's happening on the shrimp boats so we'll understand?

• 1610

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: What's happening on the shrimp boats is there's one observer on board and the one observer sleeps sometimes. When he is asleep, the captain puts his crew fast to work and they go, helter skelter; they bring in the small shrimp and slip it right over the stern again. You see forms of it across the ocean, miles long, and the gulls are having a great time.

I spoke to an observer who came to see me—he's from Labrador; he's from my riding actually—and he said, “Lawrence, this has to stop; it will go the way of the cod if it doesn't.”

I'm very concerned. I think we can do something in the shrimp fishery. I think it can add to $100 million plus a year, but we're not going to have it for many years.

I'm really concerned about the increase of quotas to the point of 85,000 metric tonnes, and if we add another 85,000 tonnes or more on top, we're talking in excess of probably 160,000 to 170,000 if we get into high-grading. It's a big problem.

It's not “if” this is happening, Mr. Minister; this is happening and it must stop. I would say get the DFO uniform people on board.

What you have to do—and I don't want to tell you how to do the job—is set it up so that when they leave their charts are properly done. You have to send somebody. This has to be charted. This has to be programmed. This has to be policed. This has to be done.

The way those boats are landing and the kinds of reports and stories I'm getting are leaving a lot to be desired. I think we have to get on it right away. Stop it right now, Mr. Chairman, and we'll all be the beneficiaries in this country for doing so.

The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien, how much dumping is taking place according to what you've been told? What percent?

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: I've been told that the percentage that's dumped is far greater than what they're keeping.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Can you get that in writing, Lawrence?

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: That creates a different problem, Peter, because these are some of the people who are involved in the industry. They're associated with DFO and depend on DFO officials for licensing and permits and consultations. It's a difficult problem for them, so I can't do that. I can't do it from the observer's point of view. His or her job would be at stake. I can't do it from the industry point of view.

Mr. Minister, would you have any comment?

Mr. David Anderson: Yes.

First, I would like to welcome our colleague back to the committee. Maybe it's good news. I don't know whether my appearance last time sent him away or if my appearance this time brings him back. But we're delighted to see you, Lawrence.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Thanks.

Mr. David Anderson: It's great, and I certainly would love to be back on the Labrador coast with you. We had a great time.

With respect to the shrimp fishery, you're onto a very important issue, the issue of high-grading, where you throw off either the smaller fish or the less valuable fish, as the case may be, or the species that you hit your by-catch limit on.

It is really important, and that's why we insist upon the 100% observer coverage.

You incorrectly pointed out that they sometimes sleep or are not alert. Under those circumstances the best we can do is compare percentages boat to boat to boat. In other words, where you have a situation where you have a skipper who's reliable and you suddenly find a disproportionate number of smaller shrimp in one boat compared to another, you know something's fishy, if I may pun. You know something's not right. That's what we try to do. The other thing we try to do is onboard spot inspections.

Finally, the issue can be handled to a certain degree by the records of the individual who is there and sees that the shrimp, or whatever product it is, is coming aboard and says, “That bin was filled with grade X or grade Y shrimp and now suddenly it's filled with grade A or grade B shrimp.” So there are some internal mechanisms.

Certainly I would be delighted to have the information from that person, because we want to get to the bottom of this. If we have that type of high-grading or some of the by-catch problems, then our science becomes unreliable. We have to rely upon landings for our science.

In addition, you've mentioned the amount. We think this is a bit of an unusual bloom of shrimp and it's going to decline. That's why these additions are all temporary. But it is there now and we feel we should be able to take it at the present time. That's why it's gone up to virtually double what it was in 1996 for shrimp. It's a good news area.

Finally, I would ask the committee itself more generally, on recommendation 9 on the west coast, which says, “The Committee believes that fisheries officers can successfully manage the shrimp beam trawl with random checks”— If Lawrence is correct with what he says about shrimp on the east coast, it seems to me that you may want to reconsider recommendation 9 on the west coast, that we should not be monitoring as closely on the west coast. If this is a problem, I don't think people on the west coast are any less or more honest than they are on the east coast; therefore we probably should have a similar approach on both coasts.

• 1615

But if we can get the evidence from the observer you mentioned, we would love to look into that. There are all sorts of mechanisms. I can lift the licence of any vessel. I can do it on the grounds I have adequate reason to suspect they're not following the rules, and I will do that.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: The problem I'm facing, Minister, is this. I can probably get some information. I probably can't attach names to it, as you can understand. But we went through exactly the same thing in the Atlantic cod fishery, where boat after boat took the small fish, particularly in— I could name any bank; it could be Funk, it could be Hamilton, it could be whatever. They didn't like the size of it and flushed it. That's what happened.

I beg you, please, whatever you do, don't take this lightly. This is a very serious issue that we must deal with right now, and I can tell you that the people who told me are the very ones who stand to lose by implementation of good, sound, absolute conservation policy, because their bottom line may be down a bit. They don't mind their bottom line being down to sustain an industry well into the future. They would rather the bottom line be reduced and be sustainable. That's a very important point.

Mr. David Anderson: Lawrence, on both representations I'll take them to heart, and I think you're absolutely correct on both of them.

The Chairman: Good. Thank you, Mr. O'Brien. By the way, Mr. O'Brien had nothing to do with the west coast report. I want to assure the committee and the minister of that, because, just for the record, Mr. O'Brien wasn't present when we were doing the west coast report recommendations.

We'll switch to the Bloc Québécois. Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Good afternoon, Mr. Minister.

Mr. David Anderson: Good afternoon.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Good afternoon, gentlemen. I won't beat about the bush because I only have 10 minutes.

I have to tell you that I am disappointed. Our main problem in the East is the Atlantic Fishery Strategy, usually known as TAGS.

You devote four lines to this on page 4 of your brief. I hope you'll be able to expand on this. The program was to expire in August. Parliament will soon be rising. There are only two or three weeks of the session left. I'd like to see this problem settled or an announcement that there will be something or there will be nothing for the fisherman and I think they're entitled to know this before the 24th of June.

You tell us that you are working in co-operation with Minister Pettigrew. In the Cabinet you can decide who is going to wear the hat but as far as I am concerned, you are still the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. How can the Minister of Human Resources Development build a program if you first of all do not define the targeted clientele?

Now here is what I mean by that: when the first program was set up, officials—perhaps not the same ones who are there today, since there are some new faces—estimated that 25,000 people would be affected. However, 40,000 people received benefits, and the first thing they did was put an end to any active measures. That is why some journalists and Auditor General Denis Desautels believe that TAGS was wasteful. However, there was no waste. There was just no willingness on the part of the government to rationalize the industry.

Maybe that is why central Canada is not very keen to have $2 billion more invested in Eastern Canada. People are not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, and what they want are solutions. The solution might be to take the provinces on as partners.

In the House of Commons last autumn, after a Conservative Party opposition day on the national fisheries policy, I asked you whether one reason TAGS did not work might have been that the provinces were not involved?

So I would like you to tell me how Mr. Pettigrew can define a program without your defining the client base first. I would also like you to tell me how the provinces, who are legally responsible for processing the fish, can transform and rationalize their industry without some minimum guarantee there will be fish available. They need tools.

• 1620

And I have trouble seeing how Mr. Tobin can say that he will close some plant in Corner Brook and some other plant in Sambro if he has no idea how he will adjust the resource— he will have to adjust the resource. The other day, we did some arithmetic. We said that one job out at sea is equivalent to five jobs on land. So it's the provinces that are facing the brunt of the problem. It's in all our backyards.

When did you last discuss this with the provinces? Do you plan to establish some kind of proportional cost-sharing system with the provinces? I think some form of guarantee will be necessary. At least, that is what the Minister for Newfoundland and the Minister for Quebec were telling me.

So when are these discussions going to take place? I don't know how Mr. Pettigrew can improvise. Please, let's not improvise. I'll give you a chance to answer my first line of questions.

Mr. David Anderson: Thank you very much. I did meet with provincial ministers, but unfortunately Mr. Julien was not there. He sent a representative, and we decided to arrange meetings in four or five weeks. I don't know exactly when, but we are trying to arrange them.

So I did meet with provincial ministers. And yes, they play a fairly important role. They have legal responsibility for the processing plants. That dates back many years, before I was born. In 1929, the decision was made by the Supreme Court and the Privy Council of Great Britain. They have that responsibility. You are quite right, and that is why it is difficult for the federal government to know everything, especially when it comes to details on people working in processing plants.

We try to maintain close links with all provinces concerned. If Mr. Pettigrew and this committee succeed in coming up with something, we will see how the provinces participate.

As for standards, almost two-thirds of people receiving TAGS benefits are not fishers, but people working in processing plants. As for myself, I am responsible for one-third. And let's not forget the issue of fishing licences. A national strategy is crucial. In order to initiate changes in the fishery, we have to start by consulting fishers. The fish processing plants and provincial responsibility only come into play after the fish are landed.

We try to. We have contacts with the affected provinces, namely the four Atlantic provinces and the Province of Quebec. We also have some problems in British Columbia, on the west coast. You asked me to say something before the Saint-Jean-Baptiste. I also hope to have something to tell you about this before then.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: You can do one thing, but it is up to you. You can take the initiative. You can ask for a meeting with the ministers of fisheries and say: "We are willing to go forward with a TAGS program, but it is not—". Is it possible that they would say one thing to me and something else to you? John Efford, the Fisheries Minister for Newfoundland, and Guy Julien, the Quebec Fisheries Minister, are wondering about that. Together, they represent over 80% of the TAGS problem. They would like to have provincial quotas to be able to manage the fishery. This does not apply just to groundfish. We're talking about provincial quotas for all marine resources, because every time there is any change, it has an impact on everything. How can Newfoundland become diversified if there's no guarantees for its provincial share of shrimp, crab or scallops? It needs to know.

• 1625

I would like you to tell us what the game is once and for all. Every year there's problems in the Maritimes because Ottawa decides, for example, to change the provincial quotas. When Ottawa decides on the breakdown of crab per fleet of fishers, they forget about the provinces. So there could be a change in the crab or shrimp resources. It could start in Quebec and New Brunswick, and spread to the other provinces. It's not that I don't want to give any quotas, but at some point, I would like to see that quota frozen.

When you run a program and are trying to manage a shrinking entity, you need to have clear parameters. You don't have to have been born on the waterfront to understand that. Obviously some parameters are required. After that, the people will work.

Perhaps our problem is constitutional in nature— I had promised myself not to mention that today, but the fact is that when a fish is alive, it is federal, and when it is dead, it is provincial. So I ask you to come up with some agreement or other.

You talked about international agreements, but some work can be done within Canada. The quotas are already determined, and afterwards, the NAFO members come to an agreement with their biologists. They play their conservation role. It is a role that Ottawa could play. But it is difficult for you to be both judge and judged, that is, to determine how big the quotas will be and who will get them. You get attacked from all sides, but I have a solution for you.

Mr. David Anderson: Thank you very much. I would like to remind you that it was just last week that we held a meeting of all Fisheries ministers in Canada.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I did not broach that topic.

Mr. David Anderson: I spoke with them as much as possible about the strategy and we will do the same thing as soon as we have any news for them. Right now, we do not have any. As Mr. Pettigrew often says in the House, we haven't reached the point of making announcements. As soon as we are ready to do so, we will hold more meetings with the provinces.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: But how can Mr. Pettigrew announce anything if you don't first determine what type of image you want to portray?

That is what I wanted to know. A short-term solution must be found which may end up costing Mr. Paul Martin less. We are short about 200 or $300 million to end the year. So stick to your original promise, which was the spring of 1999, and take 1998 to settle this matter.

Mr. David Anderson: Yes.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: That would be rational.

Mr. David Anderson: Right. I am listening to you, but I am not authorized to give you the details. The decision has not yet been made and I am not authorized to give you the details. Even if the decision were made, it would be up to the committee chair to make the announcement.

You also spoke about a lack of knowledge about stock quotas. It is true that we, not the provinces, take the fleets. We're talking about the historic distribution of the fleets. But, given that the fleets come from a particular port, the distribution is more or less the same as the situation in the various provinces.

We have another problem as well. The fishers themselves want some flexibility. If, for example, they have a good reason to go to a different port, they don't want to always be forced to return to their home port. So there is some need to allow the fleets to have access to the various ports in the Atlantic provinces. However, stock allocation and temporary stock allocation, particularly in the case of shrimp, crab and lobster, has pretty well followed known, traditional percentages allocated to other fleets. There is some adjustments going on. Theoretically, our decisions are based on historic allocations, even in the case of temporary quotas.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Stoffer, NDP.

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

Thank you, Minister Anderson, and your colleagues from the Department of Fisheries, for coming up. I must say, every time we call you, you're here. It's really good that you're very cooperative with this program.

I'll start off with the good news. I do want to thank you, on behalf of many interested parties in the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia area, for stopping the licences given to the krill fishery. I would only hope that your department would make a permanent ban on any type of krill decimation or fishing of any kind. That would go a long way.

• 1630

Also, you had mentioned the aspect of the shrimp observer fees out on the west coast in our recommendation. Their biggest concern is the fees. The fees they have to pay are, in their minds, very prohibitive. That's an example, similar to the wharves, of what used to be taken care of by the federal government now being downloaded to the provincial or the municipal level or the private interests in the concern.

Regarding TAGS, Minister Mifflin had indicated that there would be an announcement sometime in mid-June. He's been all over the map on TAGS, and he has those poor people in Atlantic Canada all over the map themselves, not knowing what the hell is going on. You've also got the Premier of Newfoundland saying that there's going to be $1.2 billion— no worries, he's got an inside source. The next day he turns over on an open-line show in Newfoundland and says he can't verify that comment.

I literally beg you, sir, as a fellow member of Parliament and as a colleague in the House of Commons, please allow the opposition parties and your fellow Liberals the opportunity to ascertain whether or not the new post-TAGS program, the adjustment program— Please allow us the opportunity to debate that issue while the House is still sitting. If it comes out after the House closes or recesses for the summer, the perception to every single fisherman and plant worker on the east coast will be that you've got something to hide, and we'll be debating this thing through the press, not where it should be debated, which is in the House of Commons.

I beg you, sir, with all respect, to please encourage your colleagues in the cabinet to make sure that program is initiated or at least done while we're all sitting in the House of Commons.

In your brochure that you sent us, or your speaking notes, in the one about the ministers meeting, you highlighted a memorandum of understanding of the freshwater research with the three prairie provinces and you said you'd like to do one with Ontario. Are you also including the Northwest Territories government with that as well? I didn't see it here, and it may be just an oversight. I would suspect that's what you had hoped to do.

Also, on the sea lamprey control, you know very well that one of your colleagues had a motion put forward that was unanimous that said the funding for sea lamprey control should be at $8 million, in a continuum. I would just like your comments on that, if you would support that.

Again, on the post-TAGS, I just can't go over that enough. Regarding the TAGS program, if you announce a program—whether it be an adjustment program or something of that nature for the east coast—will you also be including any kind of adjustment program or workplace adjustment programs or fishery habitat programs for the west coast at the same time, or will that be done as a separate measure as well?

There are other issues I wanted to bring up. The IFAW has asked me to ask you this particular question: What is the department doing to try to prevent the sale of seal penises to what they call the endangered species market of Vancouver and Toronto in the Asian markets there? They come up with constant evidence—although I haven't seen it myself—indicating that seal penis sales are still happening, and they've asked me to ask you what your department is doing to prevent that.

Also, Mr. Minister, the other day the environment committee released their report as well as the Auditor General report on the environmental protection, especially when it relates to the Fisheries Act section 36. It is obvious to everyone involved that there's very little or no cooperation between the environment department and DFO, because we have tremendous habitat losses of salmon resources on the west coast, and on the east coast now with the Miramichi we've heard of trouble there with the forestry concerns.

I would just like your comments. Are relations improving between the environment department and the fisheries department? And will your department be responding in any way to that report that was released the other day?

Also, sir, the most troubling thing we've noticed—and I can speak for myself on this one—is we were at the board of the FFMC in Winnipeg— Actually, the plant is 50 miles away from any body of water—good location for a plant. We saw quite a childish display between your appointee there, Mr. Ron Fewchuk, and the chairman of the board. There was quite an open display of hostility and distrust. My fear is that if that is allowed to continue, a lot of the northern fishermen of the FFMC who rely on that for their future sales are going to suffer greatly, because they're already suffering now.

• 1635

I would encourage your department, or you yourself, sir, to go there and put these children in their place and straighten that department out once and for all.

I could go on forever, sir, but I want to say—

Am I out of time?

The Chairman: You've gone five minutes, so you have another five minutes for everything.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Oh, great. That's his response?

The Chairman: That's his response.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: God love you, I'll tell you.

Mr. David Anderson: I think I had better start.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You go right ahead.

The Chairman: Mr. Stoffer, are you finished?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I have two small things, but I'll—

The Chairman: Well, yes, but you might not get the small things in at the end.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

Basically, with Mr. O'Brien's comments regarding the shrimp and the observer concerns, a very serious concern, will your department be adding any enforcement to that? Instead of just the checks you mentioned, will they be adding any additional enforcement to go out there and have a first-hand look at this dumping?

If Mr. O'Brien says there are miles of small shrimp and the birds are getting fat, all it takes is one of your ships to go out there and have a look, and that may stop it right then and there. I would encourage you to definitely look in that regard.

The last thing is wharves. The downloading of the wharves to various municipalities is of great concern, because a lot of these municipalities don't have the— They're claiming quite a financial hardship by absorbing the costs of those wharves. That was right across the country.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Minister, I wonder if you could try to answer all those questions in three minutes.

Mr. David Anderson: Oh, easily.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You said ten minutes.

Mr. David Anderson: First, I'd like to thank Peter for the comments with respect to krill.

The problem with making a permanent ban is you then are constantly faced with other people saying the same thing when you have temporary aberrations in other fisheries. So the best thing seems to be to leave it open and turn them down when they don't make sense. Otherwise you're going to get in this business of— well, one or other species will suddenly be of concern; you'll put a permanent ban on and later on it will make sense to fish it. After all, the basic objective is to give fishing opportunity to fishermen and do that in a conservation way. It's not simply to preserve stocks in their perfect maximum numbers for looking at. So that's one.

On TAGS, I think the issue at debate here is a very important one that I should bring to the discussions of the committee. Peter, thank you, I'll do that.

It would be nice to have that decision soon and to have an opportunity for you to comment on it when the House is sitting. I know full well that you will not be restrained about commenting on it after the House sits; nevertheless, I think you have a point that I should take up.

On the Northwest Territories, yes, we have had discussions with them. We'll keep working on that.

With respect to the lamprey, we've increased the funding 15% over what it was last year and the year before to $6 million. If there's a need, certainly I'm very willing to consider going above that.

Let me say to this committee, and I think I have said this to you before—certainly I've said it to people of Ontario who have asked me about this—we're going to make sure lamprey protection continues. It may be some arrangement with the province. It doesn't mean to say we always have exactly the same share, because we're trying to work out a better system with the province of handling some of the freshwater issues. As you know, they handle freshwater recreational issues.

So it may not be exactly the same, but I can assure this committee that lamprey protection will continue, and Paul will not have to worry about having it continue in the future, as I know he's done a good job in the past. We're going to continue that, and that's what the $6 million was meant to indicate.

On adjustment and fisheries habitat, Peter, eight days ago I announced $7.25 million worth of habitat programs for community groups, over a hundred different projects. Some organizations got two, in fact. I announced it at a penitentiary, where some of the people inside are working very well on a very good program of helping the fish and helping themselves.

So we're keen to make sure we look at every possible way of having communities, individuals, and non-governmental organizations involved. I can assure you that last week's $7.25 million is not the end of my announcements on west coast habitat.

• 1640

With respect to Pacific shrimp, Peter, in 1997 the industry agreed first to fund the monitoring program, and they also agreed to fund a specific shrimp manager. They asked and they agreed to do that. Then they asked us, the DFO, to collect the money to pay for what they'd agreed to do, through licence changes. So in fact we are doing pretty much what they wanted, and now of course they're saying they don't need as many.

My only comparison between the east and west coasts is perhaps if we'd heard the comments of Lawrence about the way you can cheat on the issue of high-grading— Maybe that same principle should be applied on the west coast as well as the east. We should look pretty carefully at recommendation 9, but I'll respond to that some other time.

Are we working well with Environment? Well, I hope we're working better. They handle interior habitat issues; we handle the salt water. In B.C., for example, it's split at the tidewater. They handle upstream and we handle downstream. None of these relationships is perfect with the province, the federal government, DFO, and DOE, but we can improve it, and we're determined to do so.

We're going to look very closely at the assessment of the recent habitat commissioner's report, because we want to make sure we do that. That's why this government set up that office, so we'd have that kind of outside comment on the environment, which is probably a much more difficult thing to do than what the Auditor General does. He just deals with dollars. Habitat has so many different variations and so many different aspects that it's a very important office indeed—no disrespect to the Auditor General of course. It's a very difficult job, and I think he'll be a very useful person.

On the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board, yes, I had a report of your committee meeting, and you've probably described it, Peter, with a fair degree of accuracy. I have seen the two reports that have come out about the dysfunctional—and I use the word advisedly—operations of the board and president, and we're going to settle that. In the report it was said the president's not had a chance to show whether he can do the job, because of interference from the board itself. But that will be dealt with in due course.

There were at least two other items. One was seals. We do not have any restriction on any part of the seal. It can be sold on the open market. So if seal penises are being sold—and there may be some— First I have to tell you the industry itself says they're a very small proportion of the overall value of the animal and the industry. It's less than 5%. Prices are very low compared to these IFAW exaggerations we've heard. I gather they're just around $10 or $15.

The other issue I think you should take seriously—and I'm really perfectly serious about this too—is that this is a cultural issue for many Canadians of different origins. It's fine for us around this table to say we have different cultural values, but others in this country have different values.

If you want to say no on the basis of cultural value, make it up front. Say “Our culture is superior; we think this should not happen.” If you don't, if you have stock in Pfizer and you think Viagra is more effective, fine, say that too. That's a scientific judgment. The fact of the matter is there are Canadians who believe this is an appropriate product of the seal and should be in the market. They may be wrong, but who am I to say they're wrong?

If you have any comment as to the efficacy of either of these products, maybe you could offer it, but basically this is a major cultural issue. I would be very hesitant to say that those other cultures that come to Canada are therefore wrong and they cannot in fact purchase a product that they believe to be no different from any other product of the seal, from the point of view of trade.

The Chairman: We'll have a closing comment by Mr. Stoffer and then we'll go to Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the additional minutes.

I think their biggest concern is the fact that the seal will be killed strictly for that one part. It's similar to the complaints or concerns we heard about killing a bear for only its gall bladder or a black rhino for only its tusk. I think that's their major focus on that question, and it's why I asked it.

I'd like to go very quickly, sir, to the allocation of shrimp. You had mentioned—and I corrected myself prior to our meeting today—that the 14 licence holders who have 17 licences were given 90% of SFA 4, or 2,800 tonnes, and then in SFA 6 it was about 2,300 tonnes. So that's an allocation of over 5,000 additional tonnes of shrimp to those licence holders who already had quotas of shrimp.

• 1645

My question, sir, is, would it not have been just as well for job creation—take the Fogo Island Co-op for example—to have gotten some of that? They're right in the middle of zone 6, and your fourth principle is that those adjacent to the resource will have priority.

Nova Scotia as well had asked for small allocations of the shrimp. I can appreciate your concern that everybody asked for a piece of the pie and the pie's only so big, but you had organizations that already had shrimp quotas. Would it not have been just as good to allow some of those new additional quotas to go to new entrants like Fogo Island Co-op or those in Nova Scotia?

The Chairman: We've gone far over your time, Mr. Stoffer, but I'll allow the portion of the question to be answered relating to the Fogo Island Co-op.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's in his riding, by the way. That's why I asked it.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. David Anderson: The issue, Mr. Chairman, as a Newfoundlander, is of course that there are at least a dozen fishermen on Fogo Island who have licences and are eligible to go out and fish shrimp under this new allocation. So in addition to giving the fishermen themselves the same type of rights as fishermen in other parts of the chair's riding, in terms of the opportunity of going out there, we would be giving a separate allocation to the organization. We decided not to do that because there are already a dozen people in Fogo Island who can take part in the fishery under this additional quota.

Now with respect to the original 17 companies, a good number of them are companies made up of the Inuit of Baffin Island, the Inuit of northern Labrador, as well as the Makivik Corporation. There's a least one co-op in there as well, and then there are some that you might call traditional fishing companies.

The issue that I had to face was this: do I say there's nothing for these big licence holders who fish in big boats?

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: They should have got nothing.

Mr. David Anderson: Well, okay, that's your view. On the other hand, these people had pioneered the shrimp fishery out there. There was an increase in the amount of shrimp, and we gave them 10% of area 6. So 90% went to the inshore fishermen and we gave them a small slice. That's where the big increase was.

Now in area 4, which you referred to as well, there's a much smaller increase. I believe it was 5,000 tonnes. So in the northern area, they get a much higher percentage of share, but it's of a much smaller amount of shrimp. So there isn't such a big differential as it appears.

Basically, we've given 90% to the small inshore fishermen. Then we said to those who were already in the business, including people like the Inuit of northern Labrador and Baffin Island, that they were getting more too, because they've been in the business, they've had the licence, they were the traditional fishers, and they pioneered this fishery.

So it wasn't the easiest decision, Lawrence, I've got to admit.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Minister, I totally disagree with how you allocated—

Mr. David Anderson: I'm only explaining with the full realization that no matter what decision I make, it's undoubtedly going to be objected to by a very large number of people.

The Chairman: Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Minister, thank you for that answer.

Would you be able to supply us with copies of who the inshore fishermen are?

He told me to do that.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): No, I did not.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Is it possible to get a copy of those people who received the allocations?

Mr. David Anderson: I don't know. I could look for it.

The Chairman: Order, order.

Mr. David Anderson: I know there are at least a dozen in Fogo.

The Chairman: Okay, buddy, that's it.

Mr. Matthews.

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

Thank you, Mr. Minister and officials, for appearing today. I've got a few comments to make and a few questions to ask. It's kind of difficult at this stage of the program to come up with something different and not repeat what's been said by many before.

Mr. Minister, I just want to ask you a question pertaining to the anticipated commercial cod fishery on the south coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think it's particularly in the 3PS area. As I understand it, you have not responded to the FRCC report. You have not set a TAC. We need this to happen so that fishermen can go fishing, as many of our TAGS clients have been terminated from the program and fishermen have run out of EI benefits. There is going to be a commercial fishery, so I'm wondering when we can expect you to make an announcement and respond to the FRCC report and announce the TAC so that these people can go fishing to make a living. Why is there a delay? As I understand it, you've had the FRCC report and recommendations for a considerable amount of time.

• 1650

I want to reiterate Mr. O'Brien's concerns about the shrimp and say to you that it still goes further than shrimp, as important as that is.

On the use of gill nets, on the south coast, where we've had a limited commercial fishery for the last couple of years, I would suggest to you that if this year you set a total allowable catch of 20,000 metric tonnes of cod in 3Ps, there will be 30,000 or 40,000 metric tonnes of fish actually caught, because once those gill nets are left in the water for any period of time, active observers today tell me there is significant damage to fish, particularly in the bottom half of the gill net, that are eaten by creatures on the bottom of the ocean and so on.

I would suggest that if you set a 20,000 metric tonne TAC, you're going to have a lot more fish than that actually caught in that limited commercial fishery. I think we have to do something to address that, for the simple fact that even though our stocks are regenerating in a significant and good way in our southern zones—and the northeast coast of course is quite different—we can't afford to waste 1,000 tonnes of fish, in my view, if we can take corrective measures.

I'm not suggesting we should ban the gill net fishery, but there are some very legitimate concerns about that, which I would like to bring to the attention of you and your officials. It's been brought to me by people who are very active in the industry today, who know what they're talking about. It's not hearsay. They're not telling me because they think I want to hear it. I've grown up with these people, and I know what they're telling me is the truth.

You mentioned boat safety in your statement, and I think you were basically talking about recreational fishing. In the fisheries committee deliberations, particularly around Atlantic Canada, time after time, practically at every meeting, we had fishermen who came to us concerned about their boat sizes and about the difficulty in having their boat sizes increased. Because of what's happened to our fish stocks, these people have to go further and further offshore to make a living, and they're restricted from increasing their boat sizes.

It's really for safety reasons. It's not that they would be enabled to catch more fish than they're allocated, because they wouldn't. Even though the boat may be a bit bigger, it wouldn't put any additional pressure upon the resource.

I'm wondering if you and your officials have seen that recommendation from the committee, and if you have any intention of responding to it. In my view, it's a very important recommendation that needs to be dealt with. Life is being jeopardized because people are forced to go further offshore to make a living.

Peter alluded to wharves, downloading, and your small craft harbour program. We have I don't know how much infrastructure around the south coast of Newfoundland, so I know what you have in the country. But there's an increasing problem with sea walls and slipways and wharves that have been put in place by one form of federal agency or program or another. A lot of that infrastructure has been there for 15 or 20 years, and a lot of it is now basically at the end of its life. A lot of it is protecting roads, private property and so on, but there is a need.

I know your small craft harbours program has an inventory that it's trying to reduce, for reasons, I guess, of the crunch on dollars, but there is a very significant and serious problem with a lot of infrastructure around our coastline that really needs to be repaired. I'm wondering if your people in the small craft harbours program have done any thinking about this. I guess for me it ties directly into what we can anticipate in a post-TAGS program.

I just want to emphasize again, as others have, that for me a licensed buy-out program is very, very important; an early retirement program is very, very important; and a continued income support program is very, very important.

Mr. Minister, even though I know you can't tell the committee, I'm wondering if any serious consideration is being given to an economic development component. There are a lot of good things that can be done with economic development components, which would create some very meaningful employment, and as well do some very good work on very important infrastructure. In my view, in my position I have no other way of accessing dollars to repair, to be very honest with you. I know that those of you who represent coastal ridings where this infrastructure is in place must experience the same problems.

I was interested in your comments, Minister, on Bill C-27 and the UNFA agreement particularly. You made a statement that you wanted to clarify some misconceptions about UNFA and Bill C-27. There was a fair bit of concern during the debate in the House, and I'm sure you recall, that indeed Canada would need consent from the flag state to board and/or charge a foreign vessel if we determined there was a violation. My understanding is if we boarded a vessel and detected a violation, we would notify the flag state and they would have three days to respond. If we didn't hear back from them, it is my understanding that there would be a sort of concurrence that there was a problem and we could proceed with the violation—we could bring them to port or do whatever.

• 1655

My question is, Minister—and I wonder if somebody can respond to this—do we need consent from the flag state to board or to board and charge a violating vessel? If we do have a violation, do we bring them to our own port until an enforcement vessel from the flag state arrives and takes charge? What guarantee do we have—or do we have the resources to guarantee—that if we detect a violation and the flag state takes over the situation, anything is done to deal with the violating vessel? Those are the concerns I have.

We could board. We could find a violation. We could notify the flag state. Some NAFO patrol vessel or something could show up to take over and our people would leave, but what guarantee do we have that once we leave the scene anything happens to the violating vessel? These are the concerns I have. Hopefully you can put them to rest for me and the committee and whoever else might be interested in this. There's still a misconception amongst some people, and I'd like you to address it if you can.

Mr. David Anderson: Thank you very much, Bill.

The Chairman: Minister, if you can, consolidate it.

Mr. David Anderson: Yes, I'll try to be as brief as I can.

On that last one, we will be having a special session, I understand, but nevertheless I'll comment on it.

Starting from the top, let me announce today that we will have a 20,000-tonne fishery for cod off southern Newfoundland in the 3Ps area. The reason for the delay was because we wanted to be sure differing views on this were fully canvassed and we had a clear understanding that this could be done without damaging the stock and its future growth potential. I appreciate the fact that your subsequent comments were about conservation and you would understand that fully.

The comments you made are very helpful to me, and I will undoubtedly be in touch with you to make sure the measures taken in that area do not lead to the type of incidental catch and loss of fish you realize, quite correctly, is possible if it's not a properly regulated fishery. So we will try to make sure it is 20,000 tonnes and not something that damages the stock.

On shrimp, the allocation has been based on a number of principles. Adjacency is one that's been important. There is the viability of existing licence holders. We want to try not to have an increase in existing harvesting capacity, because it doesn't make sense to have people gear up and spend a lot of money for what may be a temporary increase in shrimp. That is the way we approach the shrimp allocation. The overwhelming increase, of course, has gone to the adjacent fishermen and the small boat fishermen who've been so hard hit by groundfish declines.

On boat safety, we've tried to lift the limit on the length. As you know, the boat simply gets wider and then you have volume restrictions. They change the positioning of the engine, it becomes less stable, and you have a safety problem. You're perfectly correct that a limitation on length can lead to safety problems.

We've attempted to handle that by having an ITQ system. Regardless of how big the boat is, it will not affect the number of fish taken by that particular licence, because they are limited by the ITQ. We've simply taken off many of the restrictions. Where you have the competitive fishery, it has been necessary to maintain size restriction, simply so everybody is on the same basis and you don't have bigger boats out there, able to do more fishing and take more fish, while smaller boats are restricted.

On the reference to TAGS, all I can say is your representations are, as always, very precise and I will bear them in mind. They're very helpful to me, and they have been helpful to me in the discussions that have already taken place. Thank you for making them once more. I appreciate your comments as a person who knows the area well.

• 1700

Income support and economic development are interesting issues. Economic development is not an area where the Government of Canada can claim outstanding success, but there have been limited successes. Maybe there's opportunity there we could explore.

On Bill C-27, if you'd like to say a word or two— On UNFA, my officials will be here when the legislation is discussed by the committee. We do not have an expert in the law today, but we'll make sure the questions you have put forward will be addressed in detail by the legal experts, and you will have the best answer we can possibly give you at the next meeting we have on the legislation.

The Chairman: Good, Mr. Minister.

We have to go to the Liberals for their turn. I just want to go to Mr. Hilstrom, who gave up a portion of his time because Mr. Lunn wouldn't maintain the time he was supposed to maintain. We'll go to the Liberals first. Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): I just have a couple of quick points, and I'll share my time with Mr. Hubbard.

On the aquaculture process, we've advertised for a commissioner. I'm getting a lot of questions on when we will get down to business, when the appointment will be made, and what the budget allocation will be. I understand it's been increased.

The second point is ice-breaking fees. The announcement was made last week on the gross amount of ice-breaking fees—and I think it's 17% cost recovery. There is a consultative committee set up with industry. The concern being expressed by exporters—in fact several threats have been outlined in the media—is they're intending in Prince Edward Island to haul potatoes to Bayside, New Brunswick, which would be an additional cost of $25 per tonne. Officials in the department tell me the cost would really only be pennies extra. So what is it?

The problem for these exporters is that decisions are being made now for sales of potatoes next December and January when the ice is in. So there needs to be some haste in terms of this consultation group coming to a conclusion on what the fees may be. What are we looking at in terms of timeframe there?

The Chairman: Mr. Minister, and then it goes to Mr. Hubbard following the question.

Mr. David Anderson: Thank you, Wayne, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On the question of the commissioner for aquaculture, I have to admit gremlins have been at work. We handed the advertisement to a private firm, to make sure we had the widest advertisement possible. They failed to recognize that the criteria they chose for publications in which to advertise were somewhat negative with respect to French language publications. There was simply a lack of adequate advertisements for French language publications. To make sure it was fair, we went back to re-advertising to make sure the mistake of that private sector contractor was rectified. I apologize for it. It has led to delay.

The major aquaculture problem we face now is of course in New Brunswick, where, thanks to overcrowding in pens and having pens themselves too close together, we have a disease problem, which is leading to very serious problems in the Bay of Fundy. We're hoping to assist the provincial government, which has the primary responsibility, through disaster relief legislation. That hasn't yet been determined, but certainly DFO itself, under our mandate from Parliament, does not have funding to assist that particular problem they're facing. I assure you it's a serious one.

I can't give the exact date of when the commissioner will be in place. At least I should say, after my last experience, I'd be very hesitant to. But I am frustrated that we do not have that person in place.

• 1705

With respect to the wharves, I guess I'd better take this under advisement with David Collenette, the Minister of Transport, because the wharves used for potatoes and the potato ships are in fact mostly transport wharves.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Well, the ice-breaking—

Mr. David Anderson: The ice-breaking fee is now, I believe— Is it 17% or 13% of the overall cost of ice-breaking?

Mr. Wayne Easter: It's 17%.

Mr. David Anderson: Right, it's $13 million—

Mr. Wayne Easter: What I'm concerned about there is the timeframe. They're setting up a consultation process. Sales are being made in the next couple of months. In terms of their calculations, they have to know what fees they are in fact facing.

Mr. David Anderson: Yes, there will be consultations over the summer. We would expect that for the average ship— The potato vessel may not be an average ship, I know; I can't get that information. But the information we've had so far has been that winter transits would be approximately $5,000. That is equivalent, I might add, though, to 17% of the overall cost. The taxpayers of Canada are putting in a lot of money on ice-breaking still, despite this more than token but nevertheless minor contribution by private industry.

You will also recollect, as you're sitting next to somebody from New Brunswick, that there are certain ports, such as Saint John, that believe it is only fair that ports that have ice should not be advantaged against those such as Saint John or Halifax, which are ice-free.

The Chairman: Mr. Hubbard, Miramichi.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Some of us, Mr. Minister, have some difficulties looking at the estimates and trying to determine expenditures, but I think all of us can extend to you and your department some degree of sympathy with the fact that the amount of money available is getting a bit less every year.

Again, from the Miramichi, I do want to thank you for the fact that our recreational fishery was kept open. We were very concerned this spring about the many people who benefit from that and the probably at least 1,000 people who are employed along the river with it. We thought for a brief time, when our salmon runs were down in the previous summer to about 20% or so of what they should have been, that industry would have been at a standstill this year.

I do, however, want to draw to your attention the fact that the divestiture of the hatcheries continues to be a concern. Your officials should realize that the group that took over that hatchery this winter is hatching out about 300,000 eggs in a facility that in the past has had a capacity as high as 5 million. I know that group will be looking for additional help with their facility, and I think probably have already approached your offices.

So I would think, Mr. Minister, that divesting of the hatcheries was done at a very difficult time. I continue to be critical of the procedure that was followed, when we look at where money has been spent in other areas. I do hope the group will receive proper consideration from your officials when they do request enough funding to really make that a very viable part of our river's operation.

Mr. Minister, we're also concerned on the east coast with enforcement. I hope you will look at that situation. When we look at the enforcement officials we had in the year, for example, 1992 and compare it to 1997-98 or 1998-99, there's been a very serious decrease in the staff available along that entire area.

Finally, our committee has made two reports to your department, and I would like to know how your department is reviewing those reports. Do you have a small committee that is attempting to give some answers to our committee? We will be looking for some feedback from it.

I know that many people, in visiting all areas of the country, whether it be the east coast, the west coast, or along the Great Lakes, have made tremendous criticisms of how the department is managed and the results of it. I would hope our committee would soon get some indication of the results of those extensive interviews and hearings we have held. I await your answer in terms of a report to our committee.

The Chairman: Did you wish to comment, Minister?

Mr. David Anderson: Well, I certainly have not seen the proposal for the hatchery, but when I get it, I'll look at it very carefully. I appreciate the continuing interest you've had on that hatchery and the very helpful comments you've made with respect to the management of it and the importance of it.

• 1710

In the Atlantic fishery, we're now concentrating on trying to eliminate commercial netting. We got rid of what we hope are the nets that would otherwise have killed 12,000 salmon on the Quebec-Labrador coast, by buyout. That was an agreement with the Quebec government, and I must say that

[Translation]

Mr. Julien, the Minister of Fisheries of Quebec, has been very co- operative in his dealings with the federal government. Things went very well, and we were able to protect several thousand salmon.

[English]

The other area that I hope to have good news on in terms of the salmon buyout will of course affect the riding of Labrador, but I don't yet have that information and cannot comment any further as to what the figures might be.

With respect to the reports, I have a number of comments. In fact, I did try to leap into one on the west coast, to smuggle it into the remarks made by Lawrence, but I will be providing you with written responses. I will be looking at them closely.

I think—and this is quite appropriate—the committee has listened to a lot of people, as you've pointed out, who have concerns. But sometimes when you get in and look at it in more detail, the department simply can't please everybody. You tend sometimes to hear the disaffected the most clearly, because they are the people shouting loudest.

So there will be some of these comments, which I think will— We're taking them very seriously and I'm going through them. Various parts of the department are considering different ones, and I expect to have written responses to both those reports, hopefully before the famous St-Jean Baptiste day, June 24, which seems to be the deadline put upon me by Mr. Bernier, and you will be able to have a chance to look at them. I note, of course, that they are interim.

The Chairman: Yes. You have up to a year to respond, Minister.

Mr. David Anderson: I have 150 days. I'm still within the limit, I believe.

The Chairman: We're going to have to make a deal here. We're going to have to go to Mr. Hilstrom first, then to Mr. Bernier, and get a closing remark from either one. So try to keep it down to three or four minutes.

Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I'll be very short.

Mr. Hubbard referred to management problems on the inland fishery in the Great Lakes and in the area represented by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. That corporation and the freshwater fishery in the prairie province, where you've indicated you have agreements and everything going on, had been running well up until November of last year. Since then it has not been running well. Something has to be done in regard to Mr. Ron Fewchuk, and I would like to know how and when that's going to be done.

The other thing is we're talking about management of DFO and the Canadian Coast Guard, and if this is indicative of the senior managers you have appointed and have hired— The assistant director and the director of the Canadian Coast Guard have both been spoken to by myself and my staff, and they do not respond to any of my inquiries about the Canadian Coast Guard, what has happened, and where it's going in the prairie region.

So those are my two comments in regard to that. A solution has to be found. The Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is the key one right now, and the Canadian Coast Guard is the other. I don't know if I need a comment today. Your staff are aware of it, and I would expect some action in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I have one other thing to bring up here. Yesterday, we made a hard and fast agreement that today we would vote on the motion of John Duncan, which was brought up yesterday. I would absolutely insist we do this today. I would like to go to vote right now, if I could read this motion again.

The Chairman: The problem is, we already have a motion before the chair. We stepped out of that motion and we're dealing with a motion that deals with the acceptance of the estimates. I thought there was a general understanding that we would have our resident expert appear before the next meeting of the committee and that we would vote on that motion.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I think, Mr. Chairman, that was your understanding, which you came up with. In fact, this was a motion that was brought forward by my colleague John Duncan, and it was deferred to today and it was agreed it would be voted on. In essence, the point is we'll bring a motion forward that is to be voted on today, and I can reread the motion. It is this. I move that due to the fact that—

The Chairman: You already did.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be out of order for us to introduce a motion. The minister is here with his staff and all their good graces, and for us to interrupt him certainly wouldn't be—

Mr. Wayne Easter: A point of information, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Easter.

• 1715

Mr. Wayne Easter: The observer reports were offered to this committee in confidence. I can't see why you would now be asking for them in another way. They were offered and the committee never took them up on the offer.

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier?

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Yes. I would like to raise a question to the Minister, but I would like to vote, too.

[Translation]

I will ask you my question, and while he is thinking about it, perhaps our problem will be solved. My question is very simple. I just have a minute, Minister, because the bells are about to begin ringing, but I see you have some people to provide assistance. Please write down these two telephone numbers, Mr. Anderson. The first one is the Marine Emergency phone number: 418-986-2740. This is the number that is called when there is an emergency off the Magdalen Islands. This is the famous Coast Guard Radio that was closed down. When you call that number, you get a voice mail service which transfers you to a Bell Canada operator. Then you are transferred to Halifax, where the first language used is English.

You said, Minister, that the level of safety had never been reduced. I would ask you to do that as your homework. The committee asked you to declare a moratorium, but, failing that, to hold hearings in the Magdalen Islands region to answer peoples' questions.

Ms. Hélène Fauteux, whose number is 418-986-5233, did what I just asked you to do. She is a journalist on the community radio station. Since you were unable to speak to people directly, it would be good if you could answer these questions, and be heard on the Magdalen Islands. I think this is important.

You said that the report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans had been tabled too late. However, we sent you a letter informing you of our request in February. I think it is unfortunate that an administrative decision was made and we now have to live with it. I'm telling you, I would like us to deal with this problem and clarify the situation before we encounter too many difficulties before this policy results in a debt—and I don't want to see that. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Minister.

Mr. David Anderson: With respect to the comments of Mr. Hilstrom, I certainly had in fact replied to that earlier with respect to the dysfunctional nature of board and president.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't think Mr. Fewchuk has had a chance to carry out the role because of some of the difficulties he was confronted with. Whether or not it would have been different had he been able to do so, I don't know. But I hope to have that dealt with on the basis of the two reports, one that we commissioned and the second commissioned by the board itself, to reorganize and improve the structure of that Freshwater Fish Marketing Board. It is too important, with total sales of about $45 million a year, for it to continue as it is.

With respect to the coast guard, I will certainly look into any failure to communicate. My staff are instructed to return calls from members of Parliament as soon as they possibly can, and we try to do that, actually within the day, but that's not always possible. We'll certainly check on that.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier, with respect to the two telephone numbers you gave me, when they're used, they're very important. We do not want any decrease in safety on the Magdalen Islands. There is still a Coast Guard vessel there with a professional crew. It is located in the Islands, and I hope that it is used as soon as a call comes in. I will review the situation to ensure that rescue requests are answered as quickly as possible.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Are we finished with the—

Mr. Gary Lunn: If I may, Mr. Chair, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the Minister for coming here today. I want to reassure the Minister—or David, if I can to refer to him as David, as he's been on a first-name basis with everyone on the committee except myself— I'm Mr. Lunn, but I also answer to Gary. I'm really not a bad guy, and my questions are in the interest of the fishery.

• 1720

Again, we thank you for your indulgence and for coming before the committee. And although “Mr.” makes me feel tall, Gary still works well too.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lunn.

Mr. David Anderson: Howard, too; I also called him Mr. Hilstrom.

The Chairman: Is that it? We'll now deal with the motion that you want to deal with.

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, and thanks to the officials for being present to listen to the minister.

Mr. David Anderson: I'm sure we'll be back.

The Chairman: We'll get back to the motion.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: This motion is absolutely vital, and we discussed yesterday why doing it in—

The Chairman: Here's the motion proposed to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. It was moved on Tuesday, May 26—well, we could substitute that for today—that— Do you want me to read the exact words here?

An hon. member: Read the exact words.

The Chairman: Okay.

MOVED 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.

Is there debate? Mr. Easter.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Can I have an explanation of this big word, “ex” something?

Mr. Gary Lunn: It means unedited, and we're willing to change that.

The Chairman: Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I think it should be on the record, Mr. Chairman, that the observer reports were offered to the committee to be seen in camera in confidentiality so as not to undermine commercial confidentiality.

The Chairman: Order. If anybody wants to speak on that, I cannot stop them from speaking. Does anybody else want to talk about this?

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chairman, I still haven't heard the definition of the word that is going to replace that big word that I'm not familiar with.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Replace that word with “unedited”, and that would satisfy your concerns.

An hon. member: That's the issue that I took up with the minister.

An hon. member: Can we hear that again in its context?

The Chairman: If members don't wish this to come to a vote, they have two options.

Do you want to comment on this?

Mr. Bill Matthews: No, we want to vote.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Chairman, if I can comment, this is a motion before the floor, and we've called it to question. You're compelled to have a vote.

The Chairman: I'm not compelled to do anything, Mr. Lunn.

Are there any further comments concerning this motion?

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Could we have it read now in its entirety after where that word has been changed.

The Chairman: It reads:

MOVED that due to the fact the Committee did not receive the production of unedited 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 with 30 days.

We'll do that in a second, but let me ask you this: Can we actually ask that the House produce these in 30 days? There's a gentleman over here who has researched this and who claims, yes, we can.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: It was overwhelming. Three members were opposed.

This meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.