FISH Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 2, 1999

• 0913

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): I call our meeting to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we have a briefing this morning on behalf of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization.

We'd like to welcome Earl Wiseman back to our committee. We look forward, Mr. Wiseman, to you introducing your colleagues and probably giving a brief outline of, hopefully, what the committee members would want to know about the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO. We'll follow that by our usual round of debate and questions.

Following that, for committee members, we have a couple of items of an administrative nature that we'd like to look at. The parliamentary secretary will have a brief report to the committee in terms of a letter we received and also in terms, Wayne, I believe, of the suggested amendments that could be relayed to the committee in terms of Bill C-27.

So, Mr. Wiseman, I'll give you the floor, and welcome to our meeting.

Mr. Earl Wiseman (Director General, International Affairs Directorate, Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Eventually you'll want to become a full-time member of this committee, you've visited us so often.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Is there an easy way to do it?

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Yes, get elected.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.

This morning my colleagues and I would like to give you a brief overview of what the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization is and how it works.

I'm accompanied by the director responsible for NAFO and bilateral issues in the Atlantic, Édith Dussault, and by Chris Allen, who is a senior adviser on resource management and international issues and is also the chairman of the Canadian delegation to the standing committee of NAFO that deals with international control issues.

• 0915

You have before you a copy of a deck we've prepared, and I think it may be easier for us to just walk through the deck. I think this will provide the kind of overview that might be helpful in putting a context around what NAFO is and how it works. Perhaps we can then open things up for further discussion.

What is NAFO? It's a multilateral fisheries management organization. It's one of many regional fisheries management organizations that were established after the 1977 extensions of jurisdictions to 200 miles. NAFO was formed in 1979. It was the successor to another international organization that managed fish stocks at that time beyond Canada's 12-mile zone, which was called the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries.

When we extended our zone to 200 miles there was a change in the international regime for management of stocks, and a new organization, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, or NAFO, was established and came into effect in 1979.

It is currently formed of 17 contracting parties. The European Union is one contracting party, so all the members of the European Union count as one, and aside from the European Union, we now have the United States, Japan, Russia, Norway, Iceland, Korea, the three Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, Poland, Denmark on behalf of Greenland and the Faeroe Islands, Cuba, Bulgaria, and Romania, which are not active parties, and those who recently joined are France, for St. Pierre and Miquelon, and the Republic of Korea.

The next page gives the objectives of NAFO, which are to contribute, through consultations and cooperation, to the optimum utilization of the resource, that is, to ensure their sustainability so that they will be there for optimum use; to rationally manage the resource and to conserve the fisheries resources in the NAFO convention area. A little later on we'll get to a map and I can point to the difference between the convention area and the regulatory area.

On page 4 it notes that NAFO basically manages all of the straddling stocks, and the map you come to on page 6 will give you an opportunity to see what the straddling stocks are. They are the stocks that are over the Canadian boundary and the high seas boundary, and also some discrete stocks that are on the Flemish Cap.

It manages groundfish stocks primarily and pelagic stocks. It does not manage salmon, which is dealt with in different sections of the Law of the Sea, nor highly migratory species such as tuna, swordfish, and marlins. It doesn't manage whale stocks—

Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.): I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I had a meeting and was delayed leaving the office.

The Chairman: I accept your regrets and hopefully next time you'll get them straightened earlier in the morning so you can be on time.

Go ahead. Sorry, Earl.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: No problem.

As I was saying, NAFO covers certain stocks that are covered by certain articles of the Law of the Sea. There are other articles of the Law of the Sea covering other stocks, and NAFO does not deal with those stocks, such as salmon, tuna, whales, and sedentary species of the continental shelf. The sedentary species are under the jurisdiction of Canada on the extent of the continental shelf.

If we look at page 5 it describes what the NAFO regulatory area is. This is the area that is beyond the Canadian 200-mile zone. It's the area known as the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, in NAFO jargon, 3L for the nose, 3NO for the tail, and the Flemish Cap, 3M.

There are currently four coastal states under the NAFO convention. If we turn the page we can look at the map, which will perhaps make it just a little easier for us to focus on some of these points. The convention area, which is what this map shows, as you can see, includes the waters right up to three miles of the Canadian coast. The regulatory area, the area that NAFO manages, is the area beyond Canada's 200-mile zone. There is a dotted line on the map, which you may see transects at 3L, the nose of the bank, and 3NO, the tail of the bank. That is the Canadian 200-mile zone.

• 0920

Discretely beyond that is area 3M, where you can see the Flemish Cap. The 3M stocks are outside the Canadian zone. For the 3L and 3NO stocks, as I said, there are stocks there that are transboundary or straddling the Canadian zone and those are the straddling stocks.

So NAFO is responsible for managing the stocks in the regulatory area. It does so on straddling stocks with the consent of the coastal state, and for all the stocks that are currently managed by NAFO, except for one, Canada is the only coastal state. The one stock that is an exception is squid. St. Pierre, France, also has some coastal state rights for that as well.

The United States is a coastal state to the convention area, as you can see. All of areas 5 and 6 are opposite the United States coast, but NAFO does not manage any stocks in areas 5 and 6, and therefore the United States is not a coastal state in terms of a stock in the NAFO regulatory area.

It's the same with Greenland. Greenland is also a coastal state to the convention, but not to any stocks managed by NAFO. The stocks in area 1, as you can see on this map, 1C, D, E and F, are Greenland-area stocks and they are managed by Greenland for Greenland halibut in the north. In areas 0 and 1, they are managed jointly by Canada and Greenland.

Page 7 outlines the stocks that are regulated by NAFO. The straddling stocks are listed and the discrete stocks are listed.

The discrete stocks are in area 3M and they are completely outside the Canadian 200-mile limit. They live on their own without any direct connection to the stocks that would be found across the Flemish Cap on the area of the Grand Banks of 3L or 3NO.

There are also a number of stocks that exist in the NAFO regulatory area that are not managed by quota. They're not managed because there perhaps is not a significant commercial interest in them, or they are not managed because the amount of fishing is relatively small and there is at this point no need to take management measures.

For the straddling stocks, Canada has, as the coastal state, the largest share of the quotas for most of them. For the discrete stocks, we have relatively smaller shares, as those are stocks that have been left for some of the traditional members of NAFO to fish.

Page 8 gives you a bit of an overview of the structure of NAFO and how it functions. It has three bodies and a secretariat that is responsible for organizing and providing services to the three bodies. The general council is responsible for supervising and coordinating the organizational, administrative, financial, and other internal management processes of NAFO. It also determines the membership of the organization and the membership of the fisheries commission. It's the fisheries commission that is the prime decision-making body in terms of fisheries management and conservation.

The commission members are those who fish or intend to fish in the NAFO regulatory area, and there have been times when there have been members of the NAFO general council who have not fished and therefore are not members of the fisheries commission and don't then have a vote on the determination of the quotas that may be fished in the regulatory area.

The responsibility of the fisheries commission is the management and conservation of the fisheries resources in the regulatory area, with an objective to achieve the optimum utilization of the fisheries resources in the area.

Underpinning the decisions and the work of the fisheries commission is the scientific council, which is the primary forum for consultation and cooperation amongst all of the contracting parties for the study, the appraisal, and the exchange of information on the fish stocks that are in the convention area.

The scientific council looks at environmental and ecological factors, and it encourages the promotion of cooperation amongst scientists in order to determine what gaps there are in knowledge and tries to work with them to find ways to fill those gaps.

• 0925

The next page will provide you with a bit of an overview of the assessment advice to the fisheries commission; how the fisheries commission operates. The commission itself makes the decisions on total allowable catches and makes determinations on all of the conservation and enforcement measures that will be set in the NAFO regulatory area. The scientific advice for these decisions comes from the scientific council, which assesses the stocks and provides advice and recommendations to the fisheries commission.

The contracting parties of NAFO participate in scientific surveys and provide information to the scientific council from scientific surveys, actual catch data, and observer data. These data and statistics are put together to provide the basis for the scientific assessments by the scientific council, which then is moved up as the basis for the decisions to be taken by the fisheries commission.

The next page will provide you with a bit of history on recent catches in the NAFO regulatory area. Due to two factors, the primary one being the significant decline in the availability of resources, but also in the greater controls that have been put in place since 1995, catches have significantly dropped off in the NAFO regulatory area from about 153,000 tonnes in 1992 to less than 40,000 tonnes in 1998. The 1998 catches are broken down into two categories, with regulated catches at about 25,000 tonnes and non-regulated catches at 14,000 tonnes.

A regulated catch is a catch that is regulated by a quota. Non-regulated doesn't mean it's illegal; it simply means these are stocks for which no management measures have been put in place. Therefore stocks such as skate, grenadier, red hake, and a whole range of non-regulated stocks are being caught under the category of non-regulated stocks.

The primary catches in 1998 and today in the NAFO regulatory area of regulated stocks are Greenland halibut and shrimp.

Page 11 will give you an indication of the significant decline in the number of fishing vessels that have fished in the NAFO regulatory area between 1986 and 1997. You'll see in the early 1990s there were well over 200 vessels fishing there, and today there are under 50 vessels fishing there. The majority of them fish shrimp. There are only about 25 or so that may fish groundfish, and at times there may be 25 to 30 that fish shrimp.

In 1997, there was one non-contracting party vessel. These are vessels we have referred to as flag-of-convenience vessels. Bill C-29, in 1994, moved all of the non-contracting vessels from the nose and tail of the banks, the area covered by that legislation. But the legislation doesn't apply to the Flemish Cap, so there has been some minor activity on the Flemish Cap since 1995, and in 1998 there was one vessel from Sierra Leone. As of today, there are no non-contracting party vessels anywhere in the regulatory area.

One of the major areas of work of NAFO is in the area of conservation and enforcement measures. These are outlined on page 12 of the deck you have. These are perhaps the most serious areas of work. These are the tools the members have to try to ensure greater sustainability and optimum utilization of the stocks by putting in place measures to manage and control the stocks.

The management measures used by NAFO are generally the establishment of quotas and TACs, although the shrimp stock has been managed under an effort control system that limits the number of days various members can fish for that stock.

• 0930

Moratoria are a tool that's obviously used as well, with a number of stocks under moratoria. There are requirements for recording of catch and providing certain information on catches to fish managers, enforcement officials, and scientists as part of the management measures.

The NAFO conservation and enforcement measures are in an annual publication of NAFO. There is a very comprehensive listing of all the rules and measures states and vessel captains have to consider in operating in the NAFO regulatory area. Gear is also managed—the type of gear being used, the mesh sizes being used, and whether there's a need to have grates, such as in the shrimp fishery, which are used to exclude small fish and groundfish primarily, so you can have a cleaner catch of shrimp, which is the target species. There is a list of vessel requirements, how vessels are to be marked so the name of the vessel and its call number are clearly seen, and the documentation the vessels have to carry. It is all outlined, as well, in the conservation and enforcement measures.

The key part of it is the scheme of joint international inspection and surveillance. This is where the teeth are for the control of vessels that are fishing on the high seas. This provides for reciprocal rights for all NAFO-contracting parties to name inspectors, who are then authorized by NAFO to board vessels of other NAFO-contracting parties to conduct inspections.

The scheme is wide enough to include not only the use of patrol vessels and inspections at sea, but also requirements for dockside inspections whenever a vessel comes into port and a whole aerial surveillance program that is integrated into the activities of the total monitoring, surveillance, and control activities that take place in the area.

The conservation and enforcement measures outline the authorities and duties of inspectors and fishing masters. They describe what the infringements are and what kinds of actions should be taken when infringements are found. It also covers the requirement for 100% observer coverage on board all of the vessels that are fishing and states that these observers must be independent and impartial and how they should report. It has also established a satellite tracking system that I believe will be on 100% of the vessels by 2001.

The final page just outlines the current situation in the northwest Atlantic. There were significant problems in the late 1980s caused by disregard for NAFO decisions by contracting parties. This led to significant overfishing and significant damage to fish stocks, which we're still facing today because some of those stocks are still under moratoria. But that type of action is in the past. Since 1992, there has been general compliance with NAFO rules. Except in one instance, there hasn't been a major threat to conservation on the stocks in the NAFO regulatory area.

The incident in 1995 led to significantly improved conservation and enforcement measures, resulting in what are considered some of the world's tightest international control measures. In fact, the UNFA bill, which we've talked about in other meetings, is largely built on some of the accomplishments in NAFO. Many of the provisions of UNFA reflect some of the arrangements that were resolved in NAFO in 1995.

The most significant factor is that with the advent of these new enforcement measures, compliance has significantly improved in the NAFO regulatory area. The number of citations that have been issued has decreased by about 80%. While fishermen are still not perfect and fishermen will still try to stretch the limits of control, it's much more difficult to get away with the kinds of excessive overfishing or abuse of rules that existed before 1995 when you have an observer on board your vessel, when you have much greater commitment by governments to inspect vessels and to issue sanctions of greater significance than in the past.

• 0935

In the past, some of these vessels were literally given a slap on the wrist and were told they should be more careful. Today, vessels are being recalled from the fishing grounds and are being given substantial fines. It's no longer just a simple cost of doing business; it's a potential loss of your business if you're found with significant violations. I think that too has been a major deterrent in reducing the number of major infringements that occur in the NAFO regulatory area.

You'll perhaps recall that, just about a year ago, on February 12, Dr. Chepel, the executive secretary of NAFO, was a witness before this committee. At that time, he said that when he looks through all the conventions and regulatory measures of all international bodies around the world, he couldn't find a more comprehensive set of rules, even close to such, as NAFO measures.

NAFO is a regional fisheries management organization that is now being considered a model for a number of others. The Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission has now moved towards establishing conservation and enforcement measures that are largely based on this, and a number of other regional management organizations in the world have also been interested in looking at what is being done in the northwest Atlantic.

It's hard for those of us in Canada to think of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization as having any success when we look at the horrors we've faced in terms of the overfishing that occurred and the kinds of destruction that have occurred in the past. I can understand the difficulty of trying to see that there is in place now an organization that has much more authority and more teeth. But the reality is that since the mid-1990s there really has been order in the northwest Atlantic. The vessels that fish there are vessels that are authorized to fish there. They fish the quotas that they can legitimately fish. They fish them under very tight rules, and those rules are being enforced. There has not been significant overfishing. There may be some concerns about management measures that are established, but those management measures are legitimately established and are being respected by the fleets that are fishing.

I won't go on any more in terms of any presentation, but I would be pleased to answer any questions that anyone may want to ask, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Earl, just before we get into questions, maybe you might just state for committee members where the headquarters of NAFO is and a little bit about how it is administered. We have all these countries participating. Who sits at the so-called decision-making place, etc.? It might help out in terms of our discussion before we begin.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry about that.

The headquarters of NAFO is in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. There are 17 members, as I mentioned before. Romania and Bulgaria have not been active and are not part of the general council or the fisheries commission, so there are 15 remaining members. All of those 15 remaining members are members of the fisheries commission, and all of those 15 members participate in the discussions in the fisheries commission and the decisions that are set for the management of the stocks in the regulatory area.

The Chairman: John, we'll go to you now.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Thank you.

Mr. Wiseman, you mentioned that the U.S. and Greenland are coastal states but that stocks there aren't managed by NAFO. Why is that?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Let's look at Greenland, first of all. If you look at the map on page 6, there is a dotted line that shows the Greenland 200-mile zone. In fact, there's a small area below Greenland called 1F. That is well beyond any bank in the Greenland waters. There is no fishing activity taking place there, so there are no stocks that are really beyond the Greenland 200-mile zone and are of any commercial interest being fished there. There are therefore no stocks to be managed.

• 0940

The stocks in areas 0 plus 1 are transboundary to Canada and Greenland and not in international waters; therefore those two coastal states will be jointly responsible for managing or making arrangements to manage the stocks in those areas.

For the United States, again the key issue is looking at the continental shelf. That's the dashed line that's closer to shore, and you will see it extends way out for the Grand Banks in the area 3LNO. The Grand Banks are the only areas that extend beyond 200 miles. In the United States and off Nova Scotia, the banks are well within 200 miles. NAFO deals primarily with groundfish, and they're fish that live in shallower waters and banks. There are some pelagic fish, but there are not many that live in deep water that are managed by NAFO. Therefore, there are really no stocks in U.S. waters that extend beyond 200 miles into the regulatory area that NAFO can manage. That's the reason there are no American stocks managed and no Greenland stocks managed.

I also mentioned St. Pierre and Miquelon, which are not really visible on your map. St. Pierre and Miquelon are just south of the Burin Peninsula in Newfoundland, being in area 3PS. The only stock that NAFO manages that touches 3PS is 3 plus 4 squid. Technically speaking, St. Pierre and Miquelon have coastal state interest in squid, so they have a very small percentage of the squid quota.

Mr. John Cummins: So essentially the reason the Canadian stocks, if you will, are managed by NAFO is that the nose and tail are outside the 200-mile limit. It seems to me that until the early nineties, Canada seemed to be trying to establish ownership over the nose and tail, and ultimately full management of the stocks, much in the same way Greenland and the U.S. have. Have the wheels fallen off the cart? What's the story on that?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: That's a very old story that really started back in the fifties and sixties. In terms of Canada's objectives in the negotiation of the Law of the Sea Convention, we weren't really going for territory, such as the nose and tail. We were going for management of stocks as a unit. If there was a stock within coastal state jurisdiction, the coastal state should be responsible for managing that stock as far as it went. If it went beyond whatever limit was set—100 miles, 200 miles or 300 miles—the coastal state would manage the stock. That was the Canadian position in the Law of the Sea Convention negotiations. There was a lot of resistance to that from distant-water fleets.

There was a range of other options. There were other countries that had other circumstances. There were very few countries in the world that had the circumstance we had with such a large continental shelf extending quite a distance from our shore. As a compromise, the number 200 was proposed. Since there had been many divergent views as to how and where the limit should be set and what should be managed by coastal states, a consensus just grew around 200 miles. That's the way 200 miles came about. The 200-mile limit was a compromise between the position of those that wanted to have coastal state limits much less than 200 miles and from some coastal states like Canada that were pushing for much greater control of stocks beyond what is now 200 miles. That was the international compromise.

Mr. John Cummins: My understanding was that international law somehow allowed for the extension, if you will, of a coastal state's territory if the bank, in this instance, extended beyond the 200 miles. If it was continuous, then the coastal state could in fact extend its jurisdiction. The Flemish Cap would probably be beyond 200 miles, but certainly the nose and tail should have been part of Canadian territorial waters. Isn't there a convention or something to that effect?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: I mentioned that in describing what stocks NAFO manages. One of the groups of stocks that NAFO does not manage are what are called continental shelf species. Under the Law of the Sea, the coastal state does have control over the continental shelf to its full extent of up to around 350 miles from shore. That provision, however, is only for the resources that are on the bottom and below the bottom. Those include not only living resources, but also oil, gas, and minerals that may be below the bottom. So we do have that authority and it is in Canadian legislation.

• 0945

We do manage the sedentary species beyond 200 miles. There are six of them now that are specifically designated, and we have arrested vessels that have fished those stocks. In 1995, for example, we arrested two American vessels for fishing Iceland scallops beyond 200 miles. We have asserted our jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction is being respected. But we do not have control over the stocks in the water column above and beyond 200 miles on the continental shelf. Those waters are considered high seas and are to be managed by regional fisheries management organizations such as NAFO.

Mr. John Cummins: So there's nothing in international law that would say the water column in fact belongs to Canada or that we have some kind of claim over it.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: It's very clear that we don't. That's one of the concerns we faced in the passage of Bill C-29 in 1995. A number of states pointed out that we should not be assuming jurisdiction on the high seas.

Mr. John Cummins: Very quickly, you mentioned that the number of citations has decreased by more than 80%. That's fine, but has the level of enforcement remained the same? Has the ratio of boardings per vessel been constant? We're not seeing a decrease because we've seen a decrease in enforcement effort, are we?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: In fact, it's really the opposite. There are some contracting parties out there who are quite upset with the level of enforcement, because the effort that has been put out there by enforcement officers has been relatively constant. Because there are less boats out there, though, boats are going to get hit more often. Rather than get inspected once every three months, they may now be getting inspected once every month or so, and they're not very happy about that. So they are being boarded.

Those numbers, by the way, are by way of example. I don't know exactly what the ratios are, but they are being inspected much more often now than they had been in the past. And it's not only by Canadians, because the European Union has a patrol vessel out there and is conducting inspections about eleven months of the year.

Mr. John Cummins: You have 100% observers. Observers are expensive. Have you done any studies with video surveillance? Now that you have this high level of boardings, is video surveillance an option? Have you tried it as a sort of cost-saving measure for those involved?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: NAFO itself hasn't done anything on video surveillance. There have been experiments done in Canada on board some vessels in the Canadian fleet, but that too is expensive, depending on how it's done. There have been experiments using five cameras taping things at intervals. But somebody then has to come back to review all of these tapes. That's not an easy task, and if you were trying to do this for a fleet of 50 vessels, I think it would be quite difficult.

The committee looking after international control will likely be looking at other means to provide greater surveillance and monitoring. Clearly, NAFO decided last year that we're going from 30% satellite tracking coverage to 100%. There is a view that the data that can be produced by passive satellite transponders onboard vessels can be valuable in terms of monitoring and control, but there may be more that can be done in terms of more active use of the satellites and the provision of certain information in real time to carefully keep track of vessels. That will probably be looked at over the next few years as well.

The Chairman: Thank you, John.

[Translation]

It's your turn, Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): Good morning to you, Mr. Wiseman, and the other witnesses.

It's mainly page 9 of your document that interests me. I thought Mr. Cummins's questions were excellent, but I'm mainly interested in the way relations between NAFO countries and Canada work.

• 0950

I have a first set of questions about the sharing of scientific information. Perhaps the first one should be addressed to Ms. Dussault. Who gathers what, and are there predetermined mechanisms used by each participating country to provide biological information?

Next, is it a team made up of different experts from the member countries that determines the TAC by means of a common evaluation of the biomass available and predetermined mathematical formulas?

And finally, here is the big question bothering me: what model is used to assign fishing quotas to the member countries? At first glance, everything looks very smooth and shouldn't cause any problems. But, although Canada is a member of NAFO, the assignment of quotas to the different players is its ongoing problem.

So I won't try and hide from you that I'm trying to find out how all this works and if there are any elements that might be useful to us here on the committee. One of our objectives was to study how other management models work in other parts of the world. But Canada is a full member of this one.

I don't know if you have any answers for me or if there are any other documents we could refer to. You showed us a manual about conservation management methods, but are there any other documents we could read about the assignment of quotas to members, about TACs? All this is already old. The agency that did this work before NAFO also had its own history.

I'd like to find out how a dispute between the Russians and the Danish gets settled, and what Canadians have to do with it.

[English]

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Perhaps I'll come back to your last question, because it's much simpler in NAFO than in it is in Canada to allocate quotas. It may not continue to be that simple, but I'll get back to that in a minute.

Your first question, though, was in terms of scientific advice to the fisheries commission. Some contracting parties conduct actual research vessel cruises, so they would provide information as a result of their research vessel cruises. All contracting parties must provide catch effort information to the scientific council in a regular standardized reporting format, and observer data are also being provided. So parties are contributing in whatever manner they can to the database on the state of the resource.

The NAFO scientific council chooses an expert to—I can't recall the name of the term, maybe you can, Chris—be the lead person to coordinate the preparation of the advice and recommendations on the particular stock. So an individual is designated as the lead expert on a stock, and it's up to that person to coordinate—it's not quite as formalized as setting up a team, as you may have suggested—the gathering of the information by working with a smaller group of colleagues to present a draft, shall we say, of an assessment, which is then put forward for peer review and discussed amongst other members of the scientific council. Through that peer review process they come to a consensus as to the state of the stock and the recommendations to be made.

The scientific council advice has virtually always been consensus advice. It's advice that has been agreed to by all of the various scientists who are participating in the scientific council meeting. Clearly there are scientists who have greater expertise in one group of species, and they will be the ones who would speak more and focus more on that. Another group, for example, may deal with shrimp because that's their expertise. But the process is that there would be experts who would coordinate the compilation of reports and they would be then peer reviewed by their colleagues.

There would also be a lot of independent work done. Other scientists are coming with not just data, but also with more analytical work on what the data mean. There are many reports that are presented to the scientific council by scientists from other contracting parties. There's a stack of documents produced every year for consideration by the scientific council in determining the advice they're going to provide to the fisheries commission.

• 0955

Ideally, there would be a model. It's very much related to—and it's being worked on now—the application of the precautionary approach.

UNFA in article VI, annex ii describes what a model on the precautionary approach should look like, what type of scientific information should be available, and what kind of scientific advice should be provided in order to apply a precautionary approach. Unfortunately, for many of these, you need to have a fairly rich database.

For some of the stocks in NAFO we have a relatively rich database. We can provide the kinds of options and risk assessments that a precautionary approach can do, but for other stocks there aren't that many data available, and the scientists have always been cautious. Perhaps they haven't formally applied a precautionary approach, but they have been cautious in the presentation of their advice. They've pointed out the risks of fishing at high levels, and particularly since the mid-1990s they have generally been advising cautious approaches to the establishment of TACs. It's then up to the fisheries commission to assess the scientific advice, to ask further questions of the scientific council, to understand what the advice is, and then to determine what the level of the total allowable catch would be.

Since the mid-1990s, the TACs have generally been set at the level recommended by the scientific council.

The question you asked is about how to split up these total allowable catches among the members.

In NAFO we have been relatively lucky in that when it was created in 1979, an allocation key was established among the parties who were in NAFO at the time.

For example, if I take a stock such as—I'll try to find one with a lot of participants in it—3M redfish, redfish stock on the Flemish Cap, it was divided up amongst various parties, with the Soviet Union at that time getting the largest share and the European Union getting the next largest. These were all done in terms of proportion, so each contracting party would have a percentage share. Those percentage shares have remained virtually untouched for those stocks since 1979.

The Canadian share of stocks.... We have 98.55% of American plaice that's on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, because historically that has been a Canadian fish stock. So even though NAFO sets the TAC for it, 98.55% of that TAC goes to Canada.

Canada has 97.5% of the yellowtail flounder stock, one of the stocks that was reopened last year after the removal of a moratorium. So we are the major beneficiaries of that stock when the rules are applied.

The problem was in the late 1980s other parties who did not have historical rights were fishing on those stocks, and that caused some overfishing in the past. But when the rules are respected, the key is applied and the quotas are distributed according to the key.

Now we have, with the advent of new members—Korea, the United States, and France—a strong demand from these new members to relook at the quota key, because they're saying, well, we've followed the new international regime, which is that we should be joining regional fisheries management organizations, and since we have a real interest in fishing in this area, we should be having an opportunity to have access to quotas.

This is a debate that's going on right now in NAFO. There was a special meeting of NAFO to deal with this last May, and there will be another one this April. We're trying to look at whether we're going to redistribute the traditional quota key, whether we'll set up a mechanism for including new members if there would be new stocks to be managed by NAFO, or whether we will look at some parties who have quotas but haven't fished in the regulatory area and decide that if they haven't fished for many, many years, those quotas will be removed and reallocated to other members.

• 1000

Those questions are now starting to come up in NAFO—the kinds of internal debates I think you were referring to in relation to the disputes between various sectors as to what share of the quotas they should have. But so far NAFO has not had those major fights.

The biggest fight we had was when we had one new stock for which there had been no quota key—that was Greenland halibut/turbot in 1995—and that led to a major dispute.

No one wants to go through that again. I think there will be much more concerted efforts to try to come up with ways to allocate new stocks before we have one on the table, so that we have a mechanism we can apply to fairly allocate any new stocks that may be identified in the future.

The Chairman: Thanks, Earl.

Yvan, I gave you a lot of extra time, but I think it's good information to get, and I know committee members would agree.

Wayne, you have some questions.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes, unless somebody else has some.

This partly relates to what John and Yvan were alluding to as well, and that is the process of how decisions get made, the basis on which the decisions are made. You mentioned 97% of some stocks for us and so on, but is that based on historical data? Is that well agreed to? Or as you bring more members in, are we going to lose clout in terms of the decision-making process?

Basically, what's the process of making decisions? Second, how is NAFO financed? Third, what's the dispute settlement mechanism, if there is any?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Maybe I can answer for everyone. The decisions are made by the fisheries commission, as I said before, based on the scientific advice. We attempt to do it by consensus, but if there isn't consensus there will be a vote, and it's a majority vote.

In a NAFO meeting that runs about five days, about one day of that is general council business. About four days of that is fisheries commission business, with the scientific council meeting in parallel and before. Out of that four days of fisheries commission business, there are perhaps 10 minutes or less on the distribution of the quotas. The rest is on the establishment of the TACs. The key is still regarded as the method for distributing quotas. There might now be, in the last few years, new members saying, what about us, we want a share. We've basically been saying that a working group has been established and a mechanism is looking at how we're going to deal with new members, but for the time being we're distributing quotas on the basis of the existing key.

So the real debate in NAFO is what the level of the TAC should be. In recent years it has been, as I said, much more based on the advice of the scientific council. There is also another very important aspect of the NAFO convention, which basically says for the coastal state—and it means Canada—when the NAFO fisheries commission makes its decisions, it must take into consideration any management decisions and measures taken by the coastal state in making its decisions, and the commission's decisions must be consistent or compatible with those of the coastal state.

So what Canada does before NAFO meetings for straddling stocks—and this only applies to straddling stocks—is we inform NAFO that on the basis of the scientific council, we accept their advice that the TAC for a stock should be 10,000 tonnes and that Canada will be setting a TAC of 10,000 tonnes for the stock. That's the coastal state view on how that stock should be managed.

The fisheries commission really doesn't have a lot of leeway, except to try to convince us that it should be different from 10,000 tonnes, and there has never been a vote in NAFO where Canadian management position on straddling stock has been defeated. We have always succeeded in having consistent approaches coming out of the fisheries commission, but it does take a lot of debate, and there are always parties who want to maximize fishing possibilities and want to push the level of TAC above the level that the scientists may want. That does happen sometimes on the Flemish Cap. There are no special coastal state rights on the Flemish Cap. Some of the management measures on the Flemish Cap area—3M—have been higher than those recommended by the scientists.

• 1005

You wanted to know as well how NAFO was financed. NAFO is financed by all of the contracting parties. They're all assessed a specific share of the costs. They're also assessed a share of the cost based on the catches in the convention area. Coastal states are also assessed, I think, a 10% additional share of the cost. So Canada, France, Greenland, and the United States, because we're talking about coastal states to the convention, all pay a little bit more because they're coastal states. The total of all those contributions comes out to the budget required for the management of NAFO, which I think is a little over a million dollars. That's how NAFO is financed.

The final question was about the dispute settlement mechanism. There is at this time no formal dispute settlement mechanism in NAFO. There is a working group in NAFO that has been working on trying to develop a dispute settlement mechanism. Canada's view is that this mechanism should be linked to and consistent with the new UN Fisheries Agreement. We're working toward having an UNFA-consistent dispute settlement mechanism in NAFO that would not only apply to straddling stocks, which is what the UN agreement applies to, but also to the discrete stocks in NAFO.

There was a recent meeting in Bergen, Norway on dispute settlement. They will be reporting back and there will be some further discussion on this at the annual meeting in September. NAFO does meet every September, usually in the headquarters, or at the invitation of any other contracting party, in another location.

If there are disputes in NAFO, even though there isn't a formal mechanism, mediation has been used in the past where parties have called on another party to try to mediate a dispute, consultations bilaterally between parties have occurred, and at times the chairman of the fisheries commission might try to consult with parties to find a resolution to their disputes.

If fact there are always differences of opinion, and the attempt through the NAFO annual meetings is to arrive at resolutions of those differences of opinion. One can almost say that the outcome of a NAFO meeting every year is a resolution of many disputes.

The Chairman: Thanks, Earl.

Are there other questions now from the...? Bill whispers to go back to the Reform.

John, it might be good to go to Mr. Matthews or Mr. Stoffer, if you would permit that. I think we're getting most of our answers, John and Bill.

Peter, then.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Is swordfish part of the NAFO regulations?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: That's covered by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas—ICCAT.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Very good. Also, are the allocations and TACs that are agreed to through NAFO binding?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: They're binding amongst the parties as far as the parties are willing to accept them. There is a process in NAFO whereby the parties.... There is a standard principle in international law that unless a state agrees, and very rarely will a state agree, it will not allow itself to be bound by decisions of others. It always has the sovereign right to bind itself to decisions. But being a member of an international organization, it's generally understood that if you go through the processes, and the rules of the organization are followed and applied as they should be applied, you will accept the results of that international organization. That generally is what happens in NAFO. But there is a procedure whereby a party, for a reason it deems as being valid, can object to any decision in NAFO, and by so objecting is not bound by that decision.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay, very good. So if a particular country or the minister of fisheries for that particular country ignored the advice of his own deputy minister, their own council, NAFO's scientific council, and literally everything, what would happen to that particular country or that minister if such an incident did occur?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: I think that's hypothetical. You're talking about the domestic process. In NAFO, what would happen is...it is a country that objects. The processes used in that country that lead to the objection are their business.

• 1010

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. Thank you.

It's not actually hypothetical. It happened in March 1997 in our own country with the current minister. It says right here in the judgment statement from the Federal Court in Vancouver in 1997:

To ignore the NAFO Scientific Council is one thing, but to also ignore the FRCC is another. To fish above 11,000 [tonnes]

—this is turbot we're talking about—

would be completely irresponsible. It was pointed out that to blatantly overfish after our international fight against overfishing would not be sensible.

So it's not hypothetical. Our own minister in 1997 ignored the Nunavut wildlife board in this particular case. They ignored the FRCC, their own deputy minister and the NAFO Scientific Council.

We've just heard about how nice NAFO is and everything else, but we don't have a dispute settlement mechanism. It's not binding, so really it's all hyperbole. It's a nice group of people who got together and came up with these regulations, but there's no enforcement and our own country can ignore the advice of four different representatives in the industry. I just find it rather shocking and deplorable that our own country would do this.

I wonder if you can possibly explain how and why we do stuff of this nature, if you don't mind.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: First of all, the issue you're talking about was a domestic management decision. It was not a decision dealing with any NAFO stock. It really was not a NAFO issue.

The only aspect that links this to NAFO is the fact that the NAFO scientific council provided some advice. Canada asks the scientific council to provide advice on stocks that are totally within the Canadian waters at times. For example, on silver hake stock off Nova Scotia, we got advice from the NAFO scientific council.

This particular stock is shared between Canada and Greenland in area 0 plus 1, and both Canada and Greenland get scientific advice from the NAFO scientific council. We also get advice from other parties. Decisions that are taken on the stock there are related to domestic considerations and consultations between Canada and Greenland.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: UNFA and other countries in the international community regarded that decision, to say it was domestic stock, as hypocritical. That decision by the minister at that time had international ramifications about how serious we are about protecting our stocks.

The last question I have is on the observers. How does one go about getting an observer report?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: The observers onboard vessels have an obligation, within 30 days after the completion of their trip, to provide an observer report to the flag state for whom they are working and to the NAFO executive secretary. So they're provided on a regular basis to NAFO.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Can we just ask for one? Is it possible to go to NAFO in Dartmouth and say, “I'd like a copy of all reports from fishing activities for the year 1998”?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: I'm sure you can ask. I'm not sure what the NAFO process is in terms of releasing it.

Generally speaking, I think that information is regarded as confidential by the vessel owners because it gives information as to where they are fishing and what they've caught. I think they would regard that as commercial confidence.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I ask that because just recently Canada allowed a vessel in the Flemish Cap to move seven nautical miles this way and 80 nautical miles that way. One of the exchanges was that we would have full observer coverage on the vessel. That sounds great, but if it's difficult to get a copy of the full report.... I would like to see a foreign observer report that has absolutely every bit of information in it. If we're part of this agreement, why are there any secrets? Why are they hiding information on catch histories, where they catch and so on? Isn't the objective of NAFO conservation and the long-term viability of the stocks that come under their regulations?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: I can't really speak for NAFO, because I don't think NAFO has had to deal with this issue of public disclosure of observer reports. Observer reports were to be used for data gathering and control and monitoring purposes.

Fishermen are prepared to allow certain information to be taken and to provide certain information, but they don't want it to be given to their competitors. They can understand it going to government and enforcement authorities, but they are very concerned—this is one of the problems with satellite tracking as well—about who gets the data, who can receive what's being sent, and what data will be sent. In their view, rightly or wrongly, it is their data, their information, and it's nobody's business, except for monitoring authorities to ensure they're following their quotas or following the rules.

• 1015

The Chairman: I'm going to move on now. I gave you more than your five minutes.

Bill, do you have some questions?

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

How long has France been a contracting partner, Mr. Wiseman?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: I think it has been about two years. They joined on behalf of St. Pierre and Miquelon.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Is that because of the settlement we made affecting fish stocks around St. Pierre in the corridor, or the World Court decision? Is that the reason?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: It's not really the reason. They could have joined at any time, but because we had reached an agreement with them and their area of fishing around the islands was proscribed, they felt they needed to protect their interests and have opportunities to fish in the NAFO regulatory area, where they had fished in the 1970s.

Mr. Bill Matthews: What position is Canada taking to the table with regard to the U.S. and Korea, two sort of newer partners that now want to be part of the allocation key or whatever? You talked about our percentage of American plaice and our percentage of another species—I forget what it was.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Yellowtail flounder.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I know the implications a decrease in those stocks would have for many of our processing plants and companies in Atlantic Canada, particularly Newfoundland and Labrador, so what's our position there?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Our position was very clear before either of those parties joined. If they came into NAFO expecting to have access to those flatfish stocks, Canada wasn't going to be prepared to provide them with those stocks. If they felt they had rights to get access to certain stocks, they could work them out with other parties. But those flatfish stocks were traditionally and historically Canadian stocks. Not only were they always Canadian stocks, but we've always fished them. It's not as if we've been neglecting those stocks and leaving them in the water. So our position was very clear to both of those parties, who both fished as non-contracting parties on those flatfish stocks in the mid-1980s, that in Canada's view they had no rights to those stocks.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Did you say there were six sedentary species?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: That's correct.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Could you name them for me, please?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Yes, they are snow crab, spiny crab, red crab, American lobster, Arctic surf clams, Icelandic scallops, Greenland cockle, ocean quahog—I guess there are more than six, sorry—propeller clam, razor clam, and sea cucumber.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I have a question related to the one asked by the Reform member, Mr. Cummins. You talked about a decrease, I believe, in citations of some 80% from 1995. Do you have any idea what the actual number of citations was in 1995?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: For major infringements, I think there were about 57 or 60.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Okay.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: This would be for 1994, because in 1995—

Mr. Bill Matthews: We had the big kerfuffle.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Yes.

Mr. Bill Matthews: So we'll say there were 60, and you're saying there's 80% fewer now?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Yes, for major infringements—

Mr. Bill Matthews: There are probably fifteen?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: —it's under ten.

Mr. Bill Matthews: That's it, thank you.

The Chairman: John.

Mr. John Cummins: I just wonder if you have any opinion on the actual health of the stocks, like northern cod. Where are we going with that?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: I don't have an opinion; I just know what the scientists are telling us.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: There has been some change in the past few years of a greater decline and no recovery. There are indications of some positive signs in some areas, but it's far too early to become optimistic. As I understand it, these animals are mature at five to seven years of age. If we want to have a sustainable resource, we will have to let whatever small fish there are reach maturity and have opportunities to reproduce. Until they reproduce, we probably won't have any major fisheries.

• 1020

Mr. John Cummins: What's the incidental catch of these then? Is that not a problem?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: It really is not, surprisingly. If we look at northern cod, which is 2J, 3KO, particularly in the NAFO regulatory area, the amount that's caught is extremely small. We're talking about a tonne or two. It's negligible when you look at it in terms of the amounts of fish that are being taken. The main reason for that is the fish that are being targeted are primarily deepwater fish, and the cod live in the shallower waters on the bank. There's not a lot of fishing effort in the areas where cod live. So the by-catches are extremely small.

Mr. John Cummins: Is there still, in by-catches of any species, a lot of discard?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: There are discards. There are discards of small fish and there are discards of what are considered non-commercially viable fish, either species that are of low commercial value or damaged fish. But those are kept within control, and there are regulations that deal with discards of small fish.

Mr. John Cummins: One of the things that always disturbs me about fisheries management is that we do allow these discards, and I think it's something that upsets most people. It seems to me the traditional management concept has been that you're going to target a particular species and you'll allow 15% by-catch and some or all of that is going to be discarded.

It almost seems to me that style of management is one that meets the objectives, if you will, of the shore-based processors and maybe even the factory processors at sea. But is that a good way of doing it? Do we give any thought to looking at a management regime that would require you to bring ashore all that you catch, with the idea that if auctions were in place, as has been tried in the States and is being looked at in B.C., these strictly underutilized species would be used? And if you went out and targeted or you were catching a large share of fish that we're trying to protect, there would be penalties involved. Why don't we have people bring everything ashore? Do we ever look at a management regime that would require that?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: We do and we have, and we apply it to Canadian vessels. That is the management regime on the Atlantic coast for Canadian vessels. We have tried to have it adopted in NAFO. The difficulty there is you have fleets from various countries that fish under different domestic rules and domestic laws. The rules of many of these countries allow and provide for discards, and they don't want to modify their domestic laws to make changes just in the NAFO regulatory area.

In fact, Canada has a derogation from having to apply the NAFO rules on discards in that our vessels keep all the fish and do have to bring them home. Norway also has similar rules in its own waters and wants to do the same in the NAFO area. But we have not as yet been able to get all the parties to agree on a no-discard rule. There are some occasions when they would really be carrying fish that would have no value except for fish meal, they don't have fish meal processing capabilities, and you're taking up their cold storage by doing that. They resist that very strongly.

There are other ways to deal with discard problems, and that's one of the benefits of having observers, in that they can monitor and control the amount of discards. They can assure that it isn't highgrading and they're not just getting rid of lesser value but still valuable commercial fish. There are rules that deal with small fish too, that if a vessel is fishing in an area and is catching a lot of small fish, it has to stop fishing and it has to move to another area before it can start fishing again, so it can avoid catching these small fish that it will discard. The observers are there to ensure that they do move when they get into these small fish.

So it's not as tight as a no discard rule, but there are measures that are in place, and there are additional measures that maybe should be looked at and are being looked at to tighten up the destructive fishing practices that can go on.

The Chairman: Yvon.

• 1025

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I'm going to try to go quickly because I see that everyone has questions to ask the witnesses this morning. This will be fast and short since I'm going to come back to the assignment of quotas to the member countries.

You gave me a partial response a while ago, saying that there are snags, there are hitches and misunderstandings when new stocks appear in the management model. The criterion of past quotas would be less important then.

First I'd like to know whether there are any written documents acknowledging that NAFO members receive their quotas in accordance with past ones. If such documents exist, I'd like to have them.

Second, tell me how the discussions concerning the new problem you have are going. Has there been an examination of the various management systems around the world in order to compare them? Or does each one arrive saying how things happen where he's from? Could we obtain some documents outlining this so that we could form an opinion right here? Then we could see what may be applicable and what suggestions we can make to the department. I go on thinking that we have problems and that there's friction among the provinces.

For example, last week, I was reading a thesis by Ms. Yvette-Marie Kieran, comparing the French and Canadian methods of managing and controlling marine fisheries. It's incredible how much you can learn from 100 pages of a thesis. For the benefit of the witnesses and members gathered here, I'd like to talk about it a little.

One thing I knew, but hadn't yet seen written down, is that in the French area, instead of talking about historical quotas, they talk about relative stability criteria. Is Canada considering such things, or does this happen within NAFO itself?

These are the mechanisms I'm interested in seeing. Then we could look at other kinds of co-management: partnerships, transferable or non-transferable, community or individual quotas. These are the regional models that I'm more interested in.

I don't know whether Mr. Wiseman has found me some documentation or whether he already has some answers to give me this morning.

[English]

The Chairman: You've asked a very big question, Yvan. In the time remaining, I'm not sure—

Mr. Yvan Bernier: But maybe he has the answer right now.

The Chairman: Earl, maybe you could provide the committee with some information on that in a written form. I'm looking at our time schedule, because we have a couple of other things to consider this morning. Our time is limited, and I know both Peter and Bill have some questions.

Yvan, would you be satisfied with getting a written response?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Wiseman looked tempted to answer. If he can give me some partial answers this morning, I'd settle to wait for the rest.

[English]

The Chairman: My concern is that Mr. Wiseman's answers this morning have been very lengthy. If we were to ask him to answer all of those points that you've just raised, we'd probably be here until the afternoon. If Earl promises to only take a minute or two, I certainly would go along with that.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: The short answer is that we don't have that kind of documentation. There are various systems used in other parts of the world. When parties come to an organization like NAFO, they try to project those systems into it. We discuss them, but NAFO has its own discrete system, and that's the one that's used.

The concept of relative stability that you referred to is a system used in the European Union, but it's also used in NAFO. This quota key that I told you about is a relative stability key. The percentages stay the same.

The Chairman: Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: In regard to the observers on board the foreign vessels, who are they? Where do they come from? And that's not just those within Canadian waters, but those outside the 200-mile limit. Are they European observers?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: If they're from the European Union, they are European observers. There are also Icelandic observers, Norwegian observers, Japanese observers, Russian observers, Baltic observers—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's good.

In terms of discarding and in terms of what Mr. Cummins has said, suppose you have a European or Norwegian or Icelandic observer on board an Icelandic or Norwegian vessel. You said before that they had to be unbiased and neutral, but if you have a Norwegian observer on board a Norwegian ship, I don't know how unbiased that would be.

• 1030

Also, I know the observers don't tell a captain what he can or cannot do; they just observe him. You just said the observers are there to make sure everything is done right. They'll write things down and all this other stuff. You didn't say it's difficult to get observer reports, but I suspect it is. You did also say, however, that you can't get a true picture of actually what happened on that ship, because of commercial sensitivity.

I guess my point, Mr. Wiseman, is that NAFO has been around twenty years, but we don't have a dispute settlement mechanism. I've just handed out proof that our minister in our country can ignore all the advice given by NAFO. That means any other minister of any other country can do the same thing, because there is no dispute settlement. Even though there are observers onboard the ships, it's difficult to get their reports. If you do get them, a lot may be omitted or blacked out. What I'm saying is that after twenty years and with all the troubles we have in the fishing industry, wouldn't it be time for Canada to show some leadership and say we're going to put some teeth behind all these regulations and move forward into the 21st century?

The Chairman: Bill, did you have something?

Mr. Bill Matthews: Just one question, Mr. Chairman.

Between straddling stocks and discrete stocks, Mr. Wiseman, I believe you said we have smaller allocations of discrete stocks and larger allocations of the straddling. Is that correct?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Correct.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Is that because of historical reasons? Why would that be? Being the coastal state, don't we control the shrimp allocations?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: No.

Mr. Bill Matthews: We don't? Then why would we get smaller quotas of the discrete stocks?

An hon. member: Good point.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: We get smaller quotas of discrete stocks primarily for historical reasons, because the Canadian industry fished the Grand Banks—which are now Canadian waters—historically. That's the area where we developed our catch history. We didn't traditionally go out to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks to fish; we fished well inside the 200-mile zone. In 1979, when the quota key was developed, it was based on catches from beyond 12 miles off the Canadian coast. That's where we had done our primary fishing.

We never had major fisheries on 3M, the Flemish Cap. The shrimp stock is 3M, the Flemish Cap. The amount of effort days that we have reflects the amount of effort we put into the stocks during the time period used to determine the base for the establishment of effort days. That's the share we have, and it's comparable. It is a basis that was agreed to for the establishment of effort days.

Mr. Bill Matthews: So are you saying NAFO allocates that shrimp resource in 3M?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Absolutely. It's a discrete stock. We have no special coastal state rights in that stock.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Is that because it's not a sedentary species?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: No, it's because it's on the Flemish Cap. It's not on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.

Mr. Bill Matthews: So it's beyond the continental shelf.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: That's correct.

Mr. Bill Matthews: If it was on the continental shelf, if it was on the nose and tail, then we would allocate.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: In fact, there is a shrimp stock on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, and Canada has been successful in having a moratorium on fishing that stock since the start of the shrimp fishery. We were concerned about the potential fishing of that stock and the impact of fishing on groundfish in that area, so we have been successful in getting a moratorium on that stock.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Thank you.

The Chairman: Yvan.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Did I misunderstand? Do you want us, this morning, to do something else before the meeting ends? Before 11 o'clock? According to my watch, it's just 10:30. I thought we could discuss things with the witnesses till 11 o'clock. Can we talk till 11 o'clock or do you have something else for us to do?

[English]

The Chairman: We have two or three things on the agenda that we are going to try to.... Maybe I should say—

Mr. Yvan Bernier: It was not right on that, that's why. But I will deal rapidly with the witness.

The Chairman: Just one quick question, okay?

Mr. Yvan Bernier: A short one.

The Chairman: I have five people over here who haven't asked any questions. They've been very easy to get along with, Yvan, and we've given you a lot of liberties. I'll give you one minute.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: All right. If Mr. Wiseman can't give us an answer short enough to fit into one minute, maybe he would send us the answer in writing.

• 1035

Still in connection with NAFO, with Bill C-29 which we are studying and Bill C-27 which we are attempting to table, what's happening in the Estai affair now that the court in The Hague has decided that it doesn't have the jurisdiction to decide? What's happening now? As far as I know, the boat has gone back to its country, along with the captain. No fine has been levied. What's happening?

Are you going to answer me in one minute or in five pages?

[English]

Mr. Earl Wiseman: The charges against the Estai were stayed in 1995. The vessel, the catch, and the bonds were returned. The Spanish government took Canada to the International Court of Justice, challenging our right to arrest the vessel on the high seas. Canada had put a reservation before the court in 1994, saying that Canada would not accept the jurisdiction of the court for actions Canada may take in enforcement in the NAFO regulatory area. The court upheld Canada's reservation and did not take jurisdiction to hear the Spanish case. That part is over. The owners and the captain of the Estai are suing the Government of Canada, the Attorney General, and the Minister of Fisheries for damages. That is in civil court, and it is working its way through the judicial process.

The Chairman: Thanks, Earl.

Yvan, I know you have a supplementary, but I think I would like to conclude, if members are agreeable.

Earl, we want to thank you and your colleagues for coming this morning. There is, however, one very key point that maybe wasn't raised. For fishermen and fishing people, when we see the catch being reduced from 153,000 tonnes to about 40,000 tonnes in six years, and when we look at the number of fishing vessels that are participating, I would think we have to assume there's a very serious concern in this area about the health of the fishery. As Canadians and major participants in this area, I think we as members of this committee, as members of Parliament, have to be cognizant of that. We have to pay our due respects to what may happen with the Atlantic fishery in the future. Am I right?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Absolutely. The problems that we see in Canadian waters are also seen in the international waters beyond our 200-mile zone.

The Chairman: Thank you for coming, and we hopefully have some answers now on NAFO.

Yvan, we will proceed with a couple of other points that we wanted to conclude this morning in terms of a letter that is before our committee and also in terms of some plans our committee had. There is a matter of urgency there in terms of our attempt to visit the sealing area and the northern areas of Labrador in March.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Chairman, while the witnesses gather up their things, allow me to thank them too. I would also request that you might be so kind as to bring them back in the spring if ever we need them again. Would it be possible to do so, during the spring, and have more time available, of course?

[English]

The Chairman: Before you came in this morning, I mentioned that Earl had visited our committee so often that he may feel he would have to become a member of Parliament next time so that he can sit at the long side of the table.

Earl, we know you will come back, and, Yvan, I can assure you that if an occasion should arise and there is a need, Earl is always willing to come in to present information to the committee.

For the information of the committee, we almost caused a major incident here last fall when the Reform Party presented to the committee and to our clerks the minority report on the Prince Edward Island review. In presenting a report, it has been traditional that other parties can present minority reports, and those reports are tabled. I know part of the problem was the matter of urgency in trying to get that report completed before we went home for Christmas. But on the last day—I believe it was Tuesday—just before the House recessed for the Christmas break, we considered the final aspects of the Prince Edward Island report, and the critic for the Reform Party brought in a one-page document. He left it for the committee to review. Mr. Lunn at that point left the room, and I guess when it was considered Mr. Cummins was still here. Some members suggested one line or so in that minority report should be changed, and I believe Mr. Cummins said he didn't feel at liberty to change a submission that had apparently been drafted by Mr. Lunn and his group. As a result, when it was placed before committee, the committee did not accept the minority report of the Reform Party to be printed with the report.

• 1040

That decision has upset the Reform Party to such an extent that their House leader, Mr. Strahl, has written a letter to various people, with a copy to me, indicating that he was very much concerned with the turn of events. I replied to that—John, I think you probably have a copy of my reply—and said the committee would consider the concerns of the Reform Party. In the meantime, when questions of any travel by this committee have gone back to the House leadership, the Reform Party have refused to give consent.

I think this morning we first of all have to consider our reply to Mr. Strahl. Bill, do you have a copy with you of the letter I wrote?

The Clerk of the Committee: I can go upstairs and get it.

The Chairman: I believe what I just said reflected the reply I gave.

Mr. John Cummins: I would just make one addition. I agreed that the document Mr. Lunn prepared needed some editing and I was prepared to see that it was done. I made that offer and it was unacceptable.

The Chairman: I'm glad you corrected that because I didn't want to....

Lou, and then Peter.

Mr. Lou Sekora: The one comment I would like to make is that Mr. Lunn was here and handed over that piece of paper, and he was very sick. It disturbs me somewhat because as a committee we should have to work together. Mr. Lunn was in the House for Question Period, so I don't know how sick he was that he couldn't have asked to be reached by phone. We adjourned for half an hour or three-quarters of an hour so he could be here to answer some of these things.

The fact is, the write-up of the one sheet was totally incorrect, in my view. It certainly was not truthful or something we could hang our hats on. I'm a little disturbed that this kind of action delayed us such a great deal. We adjourned for an hour, if I remember correctly, to try to have it clarified. I'm disturbed that it was a game, nothing more and nothing less, by a member to maybe stall any further meetings.

Now I notice Mr. Lunn is saying it's not worthwhile attending these meetings. I feel bad about that because I think our committee must move ahead and everything else. It doesn't matter what our political stripes are or what our feelings are.

I could not vote on that letter as written. It was not correct and had to be rectified. Mr. Lunn could not be reached by phone, and we even adjourned for one hour waiting for him to come back. The most disturbing part to me is the fact that Mr. Lunn was in the House for Question Period and didn't seem to be very sick. If he were sick he would have missed the whole afternoon—Question Period and everything else. Those are my comments. It's very disturbing to me.

The Chairman: Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I guess Gary would be proud to make the member disturbed in any way, but there's the aspect of playing a political game.

Mr. Chair, just to correct you slightly, when you said the committee rejected the letter, actually the government side of the committee rejected the letter, not the opposition. I just wanted to clarify that.

• 1045

Mr. John Cummins: I don't think we recessed for an hour.

Mr. Lou Sekora: We recessed because Mr. Bernier had some questions.

Mr. John Cummins: But nobody made any effort to get Mr. Lunn, to my knowledge.

Mr. Lou Sekora: I did.

Mr. John Cummins: I didn't.

The Chairman: Yvan next, and Paul.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Thank you.

[Translation]

At the previous meeting, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me it was agreed that Mr. Easter and you—or maybe just you—were going to meet with Mr. Strahl. We can do an autopsy of what went on at the previous latest meeting, which Mr. Lunn had to leave, but that would be hard. Even if we try to fix up the past, we can't put the toothpaste back in the tube after it's come out. We have to live with the situation today.

So where do we go from here? What's the Reform Party asking for? If the clerk confirms that the committee or the government majority is entitled to append or not a minority report to the committee's report, it's the rules of law that apply.

As a member of the opposition, I'll always be in favour of including any document whatsoever coming from another party, because it's their opinion that's involved. In this regard, they have to be left alone; it's a tribunal like any other.

Having said that, if you are entitled to refuse to include the document, we'll have to live with the consequences. The price to be paid, if I understand Mr. Strahl's remarks correctly, is that, from now on, if we want to travel, we'll have to go to the House. If we have to go to the House, let's do it.

Otherwise, how will we get the toothpaste back in the tube? Is there some way of acknowledging we made a mistake the last time and asking the Chairman if he would be so kind as to include now a copy of...? Would that be acceptable to the Reform Party? I don't know, but I wouldn't spend another two or three meetings on that. The toothpaste is out of the tube and the price to be paid is for us to be told to go to the House.

[English]

The Chairman: Maybe I'll ask the parliamentary secretary. He has met with people from the Reform Party, and if he gave us his report we would be better prepared to consider your suggestion, Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I've talked a number of times with Gary and I believe once with John about this situation that happened just before the House closed for Christmas. Basically we were trying to resolve the letter from the whip of the Reform Party to the chair of the committee that the Reform Party would block any travel of this committee.

I think we felt it could be resolved by agreeing that the committee would travel to look at the seal hunt and go to Labrador, which would pick up on what was missed previously. We would also travel to look at the aboriginal fishing strategy in Oregon and Washington, as Mr. Cummins wanted.

But that ended up not being the bottom line of the whip of the Reform Party. The whip of the Reform Party basically felt the party as a whole was upset over us not allowing the minority report. They wanted assurances that minority reports would be allowed in the future and an admission that we had so-called screwed up on the government side, which I very strenuously disagree with.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, if you go back to look at the minutes of that meeting, you'll find.... Certainly there is precedent for the government not allowing minority reports.

In fairness to the Reform Party in this case and to Gary Lunn, I told him a few days prior to the meeting that given the limited amount of time we had and the fact that we were going to adjourn, we wanted to table the Prince Edward Island report prior to adjourning for Christmas, and we asked him if he could have a minority report prepared and ready to go. In normal circumstances, the opposition party has 24 hours, or however long, to prepare a minority report, and we would never see it.

• 1050

So Mr. Lunn prepared the report, and of course we saw it had the statement in it that the committee had fired George Baker, which was wrong. As a member of the committee, I certainly couldn't accept it with that statement in it. For whatever reason, whether we didn't make enough effort to contact Mr. Lunn that day or John couldn't accept responsibility for making the changes, a set of circumstances led to our side not being able to accept the minority report.

If you go back to the record, you will see on that day I said, probably about three times, that I very strongly believe in the principle of minority reports. I believe in that right, but I couldn't accept the report saying as a committee we'd fired George Baker when we all know we hadn't. If it had said the government or anything else, I wouldn't have had a problem with that.

In any event, I would suggest, Mr, Chairman, we proceed this way. First you should draft a letter on behalf of the committee, if we can come to some kind of agreement, saying we believe in the principle of minority reports—I certainly do—and explaining the set of circumstances we were faced with that particular day in which the decision was made. I maintain there were problems maybe on both sides, but it was due to the circumstances of time. There was an error, as Mr. Lunn agrees himself, in terms of the minority report. It was unable to be changed for whatever reason, but that's history. Let's move on as a committee and work together. So I suggest that letter be prepared.

Second, I suggest we pass a motion to deal with the travel to Labrador and the seal hunt. I also notice, in the paper handed out by the clerk, that we should pass a motion to deal with the travel to Oregon and Washington State to look at the aboriginal fishing strategy. So it's all tied up in one package.

If the Reform Party decides, after receiving the letter and getting the request from the committee to travel, to deny that travel, we'll have to consider other options—go to the House or say to hell with travelling.

The Chairman: Wayne, thank you.

Paul, I didn't mean to put you off.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Basically, Mr. Chairman, I don't have a lot to add. Just for clarity, I think Mr. Cummins was fair that morning in suggesting he probably couldn't agree with the statement we disagreed on. He wasn't in a position where he could take it out or have it altered.

But I can say this. We gave Mr. Bernier an hour, I believe, that morning to read the report because it hadn't been received in his hands in French. We left and came back, and when I came back I met Mr. Lunn going out the door. So he was here three minutes before we convened the next part of our meeting. He didn't even acknowledge me—and I thought he and I were pretty good friends—so he was on his way somewhere in a pretty big hurry.

If it were important for him to present that report, he should have stayed at least a few minutes and spoken to his report. He could have been asked to change it, and if he had wished to change it, it could have been changed.

I would have been willing to vote against my own party if it had been a matter of principle, but accusing us as a committee of having fired our chairman was not a correct statement. I believe the truth should be spoken at this table. That was the reason I voted the way I did that day, and I would do so again, but always bearing in mind that minority reports should be considered, and we would do so in almost all cases.

The Chairman: Carmen.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr. Chair, committee members, I feel compelled to make some candid comments about this whole incident. The analogy of not being able to put the toothpaste back in the tube is quite correct, and I thank the member for that analogy.

• 1055

I think that's the situation we're in. But as one member of the committee, Mr. Chair, I am quite prepared to take any consequences that might result from that decision of this committee made in accordance with the rules and procedures of the committee. Whatever they are, they are.

The whole question of travel, Mr. Chair, shouldn't be viewed in the light that travel is some kind of benefit or perk to the committee members. That's a lot of bull. To go to the places we're talking about in this particular agenda, Mr. Chair, is going to represent one heck of a commitment on the part of each committee member who attends. So let's get off this thing.

You don't punish the committee. When you stop the work of the committee, in effect, you punish the people who would benefit from the committee going out and looking at these issues first hand. So as much as I'm prepared to take any blame, if there is such to be attached to that decision not to allow that supplementary report, I'm also prepared to make it fully public that if the work of this committee is being stopped as a result of that, I think it's wrong; I think it's petty.

I just want everybody to understand that we don't have a great benefit as a committee member. This is not travel in the nature of tourism travel. This is travel in the full line of work and it represents a lot of sacrifice on the part of every committee member who makes that kind of commitment. So let's just call a spade a spade.

The Chairman: John, I was going to let you conclude our debate, if you would agree now. If you don't agree, I think in all fairness your party is the one most affected. I would prefer that you commented after you heard.... We've heard from the New Democratic Party, we've heard several from the Liberal Party, we've heard from the Bloc. I don't know if Bill has comments on it.

I see Lou had his hand up, so, Lou, I'll let you go ahead. But I do want to say that what you're saying is being put on the record, and when I reply again to Mr. Strahl I will include a copy of the record as it is presented here today.

I'll have a few words to say after John speaks, but, Lou, I'll recognize you first.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Again, Mr. Bernier did ask for one hour because it wasn't in French and we gave him that deal, and so we should have. The fact is he wanted to read and understand it. When he could understand it he came to the table and voted on it, and it was fine. I have no difficulty with that. I think it's precisely correct.

But Mr. Lunn was here a few minutes before the meeting and could have stayed for about three or four minutes; it wouldn't have been anything. I think it was a game he was playing, and it's unfortunate, because John is a more sensible member of this committee.

We were talking about the dates. I can tell you I'll support it. I will not be going, unless the times are changed, because on the 27th I have to be somewhere else. But certainly I believe that for the committee members who can go, whatever the dates are, they should be able to look at first class. I'll be supporting it.

The Chairman: Bill, would you like to make a comment?

Mr. Bill Matthews: Probably to reiterate, Mr. Chairman, that we did have a minority report attached to the east coast fishers' report, from my memory—it seems so long ago. That did happen, and my feeling is simply that we have to be very careful as a committee. I know that majority rules, but in my view you can't censor or edit a minority report.

If I want to submit a minority report, I should have the right to do it without anyone tampering with what I want to say or how I say it. That's my strong view that way.

Tying into what Mr. Provenzano said, I agree with him totally, that the work of this committee should not be stalled or shut down in any way because we have a disagreement or whatever.

I thoroughly enjoyed the visits I went on with this committee, but it was no great pleasure getting back to the hotel in Newfoundland at 2 a.m. from Tors Cove or other places. We worked like dogs. It was very stressful, a great inconvenience, but in my view we did it because we have a sincere interest in fisheries and oceans across the country. The same was true with our western trip—it was very good, but no great joy trip. I think we have to keep that in our minds as well.

• 1100

I don't think the committee can be held up or stalled in this way, and I feel very strongly about that. What the committee is doing is we're out trying to provide people involved in the fishing industry on three coasts an opportunity to meet the committee, to express their views to the committee. Hopefully then we can make recommendations to the minister and DFO to improve the fishing industry and the situation in fisheries throughout this country. To do anything less, in my view, we would certainly be remiss in our duties and we would be derelict in our duties. I want to go on the record as saying that.

Mr. Provenzano is correct that if any party at this table decides they're going to stop or stall the work of this committee, then I know what I will do in Newfoundland and Labrador, where I'm best known and heard most. I will inform them why the fisheries committee is not going to Newfoundland and Labrador and why we're not hearing the concerns of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I want that on the record.

I feel very strongly about two sides of it. One is the minority report issue and the other is that for anyone to try to stall the real work of the committee I think is very unfair.

The Chairman: John.

Mr. John Cummins: There have been a number of points raised. The ones that disturb me and I think that are not helpful are the ones that question Mr. Lunn's motives and his whereabouts, and I don't think that's appropriate. The issue, as Bill so eloquently put it, is that the committee should not be censoring a minority report; that is the issue. Whether Mr. Lunn's comments in that report were accurate or whether they weren't is irrelevant. The point is you can't and should not censor a minority report.

I find that to say you have a great deal of respect for a minority report and then to turn around and censor it is about as heartwarming as saying you believe in democracy and then you invoke closure 48 times. It doesn't add up.

As far as travel is concerned, yes, travel can be useful, but this committee, since I've been on it again since last September, has not been productive because we've been spending too much time dealing with reports that should have been written last year. We've been going over them, and it hasn't been a productive time. Many of us weren't on those trips, we don't know the issues from first-hand experience, and yet we're trying to edit and prepare a report for Parliament. That is simply not the way it's supposed to be done. I want to put that caution in there, that travel is one thing, but at the end of the day, when the trip is finished, that's when the real work begins, and I think this committee forgot that in the past.

My closing comment again is that the issue here is censoring a minority report. That is the issue that needs to be addressed.

The Chairman: If there are no other comments then—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Just because everything is on the record, I'd like to ask the clerk the rules pertaining to minority reports. Does the majority of the committee have the right, through standards and procedures, to actually disallow a minority report?

The Clerk: First of all, it's a minority opinion, a not report. It is a debatable motion in committee, and it's up to the majority to agree or disagree if they want it to be appended or not.

That day I did bring in precedents to show where Liberal dissenting opinion was defeated, an NDP, another Reform.... So there's precedence that it's happened before, but it is a motion that could be adopted by the committee.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chairman: John, I heard your little report there. I had to think of the old Micmac saying that in terms of your lot in life, it's not determined by what you receive when you come into the world but rather what you leave with the world when you leave. When we received as a committee the pile of work that was behind us, with all due respect to the people in the Great Lakes, the north, Nunavut, the west coast, and Prince Edward Island, we had a certain responsibility as a committee to look at what we inherited from the previous group and try to give the fisher people in those areas some report on what the committee had done. As chairman, and with the clerk and with the researcher, I felt it was my responsibility and our committee's responsibility, given the travel we have done and with the work that was heard, to finish up for the people in those areas so that they would get a written report on what the committee saw and was reporting to Parliament.

• 1105

Certainly, with all due respect, I accept what you say, but I think it was a priority that we had to do last fall. I haven't looked at the minutes of that meeting in December, and as chairman I know that I probably was trying to direct a degree of urgency towards getting that P.E.I. report back to the people in P.E.I. before we left in December. I saw as chairman a certain responsibility to get that tabled in Parliament so it could be distributed back to those fisher people, and I probably did encourage too much haste in trying to get that done for Thursday when I tabled it, I believe, in the House.

But by the same token, what I heard was that certain minority reports before didn't have to be included if the committee as a whole didn't agree with them. I did caution—I think the minutes reflect that—the government side to think carefully about what they were voting for or against. There was some pause. But I know your party have picked upon me as the person to scorn in terms of what was done, and I certainly as chairman have to accept whatever you lay at my doorstep. But it wasn't done in bad faith.

I will leave it at that and let you report. Our minutes this morning reflect what the debate was about.

With that, I'll proceed now to this question about looking for an order of reference to travel the week of March 22 to 27, I believe, to Nain and Cartwright in Labrador, to hold meetings on fisheries issues and to visit the whelping patch during that time.

Wayne, I take it that you are going to move this motion?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes, sure.

I'd like to add the other one, Oregon and Washington State, as well, if possible, although we don't have a figure for that. Perhaps the clerk could put together the figures in discussion with maybe John to know where we would have to go and how long it would take, so that they both be covered and we're not going back to—

The Chairman: Wayne, I could be wrong on this, but this is before the end of March with our budget year.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Okay.

The Chairman: John, I think if we go there it would have to be in April or May, and with that it would be a new House allocation.

Mr. Wayne Easter: That's fine, as long as it's understood that we're agreed we're going to do the other one as well.

The Chairman: But if your motion was accepted, as chairman, and with the clerk, I would have to go to try to get this brought before the House.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Do them separately if it's a different budget year. I would so move on the Goose Bay-Nain proposal.

The Chairman: Is there more debate on this issue? Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for bringing up the issue of the budget year, because there was something we discussed before at length about the possible travel in the future to Norway and Iceland in regard to aquaculture and management-style systems. It's obviously not for debate now, but in the future, if it's possible, the committee can rethink that again as well.

Thank you.

The Chairman: The budget has been distributed. With that, I think this could be debated in the House. I'll confer with the clerk for a minute.

We're going to ask for a reference from the House. If the Reform Party doesn't agree, the threat is that this request would have to be debated in the House. I would ask therefore, if we pass this, that other members of the committee be prepared to come to the House to justify this travel to the House.

• 1110

What I'm saying, and I think maybe I didn't say it as clearly as I should have, is that we will go through the normal procedure of trying to get this arranged, but if it can't be arranged through the liaison committee and the House leaders.... It has to go back to the liaison committee because they have no allocation for us yet, and then it goes to the House leaders to see if they agree. If they don't agree, I would assume from this motion of yours, Wayne, that the committee is prepared to say to us that we will go before the House with this request. I'm saying that if we have to go before the House, other people would come with me to debate the issue. Are we prepared for that?

Mr. Wayne Easter: No question.

An hon. member: Yes.

The Chairman: Peter, you can say something before we vote.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: If I'm not mistaken, there was a figure of around $75,000 that was in the so-called allocation before.

The Chairman: There was about $72,000, but we lost that because of the decisions of the liaison committee.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm thinking a good selling point was that if we had used the $72,000, it would have been gone, but this is $51,000, so you're actually saving the taxpayer twenty-something-thousand. That would be a good selling point when you go to the liaison committee.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Save it for debate.

The Chairman: Paul.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Mr. Chairman, I understand there's a conflict of time. Was there some specific reason we had to go on March 24?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes, there are conditions.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Couldn't we go on March 23 and come back on the Friday? Some of us have commitments in ridings on Saturdays. I know Mr. Sekora has a problem, I have a problem...and this is an area of the country I have a tremendous interest in and I hate to miss that.

The Chairman: Do you want to amend that? Maybe the parliamentary secretary can talk about that date, or the date tied to the House work.

Mr. Wayne Easter: The problem, Mr. Chairman, is that we expect to deal with Bill C-27 on March 22 and March 23. I'm sure committee members want to be there for that debate. That was the problem.

Mr. John Cummins: What day is that, Wayne?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Monday and Tuesday in the House. We're scheduled to deal with Bill C-27 on March 22 and March 23. We've been given that assurance.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: When is the House done in March?

Mr. Wayne Easter: The House is done on March 26. It's before that great time of year, Easter.

The Chairman: In our motion I wonder if it might give us more liberty to deal with the week of March 22 rather than specific dates. That way if it doesn't come before the House it would give us leeway to plan the trip a little bit earlier. Would you consent to that?

Mr. Wayne Easter: I'll agree to that amendment.

The Chairman: Are we ready for the motion then?

(Motion agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chair, I want to mention for people who are looking at Bill C-27 and proposing amendments that you have the letter outlining what has been committed to do at committee. The amendment of the government is in the order paper, so if other parties are preparing amendments they should get at it prior to the middle of March.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Wayne, will we have a copy of the amended Bill C-27 that you're talking about?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: When will we be able to get that, Wayne?

Mr. Wayne Easter: It should be available. I'll have to check, Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thanks.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.