FISH Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 25, 1999

• 0912

[English]

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

We want to be as brief as we can this morning because many members have other obligations in the House, including Bill C-27. The main purpose of the meeting this morning is to look at topics and also probably get a brief report from Bill on our budget.

Bill has been able to put together a number of topics. I think everyone has a copy of the seven topics, and the eighth one is travel. Are there any other topics you'd like to add to that list before we start looking at them and trying to determine some priorities for our committee, as it meets in April?

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): One is the possibility of having the minister and his department come in for a discussion on the estimates.

An hon. member: What about icebreaking, Peter?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Icebreaking—that's an idea.

The Chairman: The other topic some might want to include would be cost recovery. We have a letter that was circulated to committee members. I wrote back to the group and said we had looked at icebreaking and asked if they could be more specific. It was a general letter that went to many different committees. It just went out and I haven't received anything back on it, but if you want to put something specifically with cost recovery, maybe we could include that as another topic.

Are we satisfied with the seven topics that are there? How do we want to prioritize them?

Wayne, could you give us an indication about the minister?

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Okay. The minister is expected to be back after the Easter break. I think everyone knows he broke his femur and that's why he hasn't been here the last four and a half weeks. He is expected to be back after the Easter break. He's certainly willing to come before the committee on the estimates when he's able. So I expect shortly after the Easter break would be the time to do it. We'll have the complete estimates package by the end of March, I gather, so I'd suggest either the first or second week back.

• 0915

The Chairman: Gary, are you satisfied with that answer?

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): We want a notice of motion. Obviously he's out of commission, so I'll just move that as soon as the minister's back and physically able to come before the committee, we bring him in as soon as possible. He has physical limitations.

The Chairman: Bill noted April 15, which is a Thursday. We'll leave that date open when we look at our other agenda items. We have April 13 as a possible date for a meeting and then Thursday, April 15.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I suspect he won't be back until April 12, which will leave him a little bit of flexibility because he's been away for about a month.

Mr. Wayne Easter: He's been looking after the affairs of the nation from the phone at home.

The Chairman: Do you want to put that to April 22 to give him a bit of time?

Mr. Gary Lunn: I think we should check with his officials.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): I think that would be a better idea for us anyway. We're going off on a break, so it will give us a chance to get organized.

The Chairman: So we'll try to reserve April 22.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Since we're talking about main estimates—and this will come up in the main estimates—the minister has some responsibility to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the freshwater fishery area, on the sea lamprey control program. I realize I'm bringing this up time and time again, but there were commitments made nine months ago of a certain dollar value. Certain values were requested within our freshwater fishery's report and those commitments were made. If those commitments can't be kept, what is the real number? We have been told a certain number. I would like to see the minister respond.

The Chairman: Wayne, would you make note of that and make sure it is one of the questions that will be asked?

Mr. Paul Steckle: There has been a commitment made for a letter to go out. I was to have received the letter before now on what that number is, so we can go back to the OFAH and the people who are on our backs every day, wondering what the numbers are going to be. We're in a budget year and we need to know. We can take a lot of heat off committee members and the government if we have that number as soon as possible.

Mr. Wayne Easter: On that point, Mr. Chairman, my staff is speaking with the department now. Paul brought this up this morning. I recognize that a request went in two weeks ago for a letter in writing so people from Quebec to central Canada can tell specifically what the figure is. We'll see if we can get it worked on today.

The Chairman: Okay, thank you.

On other issues, we have not yet addressed this business of seals, which is number one on our list. It appears there are a couple of things with this. First, there are probably three groups we should have appear before us on the sealing issue. That would probably include the department itself, the different wildlife groups that are involved with sealing, and probably also the sealers. So there is a possibility of maybe three.

I would suggest, Bill, we should get CPAC involved and maybe use the room in the Centre Block. It certainly is a national issue; at least it has national attention, so hopefully we can get those rooms.

I was talking yesterday with Lawrence O'Brien, and there is also a possibility that in April there will still be good information available on the ice, in reference to sealing. When we talk about travel, it could be tied in with even a trip to Newfoundland and Labrador some time in early April. Would sealing be our priority in terms of the first major issue to look at?

Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: If I may say, some committee members may be getting a letter today from IFAW. I know they are rather extreme at times, but they're now claiming the department has hindered their approach to go out onto the ice floes and that they had camera equipment broken. They asked for assistance from the coast guard, and said the coast guard hasn't been helpful. They are quite good at getting their faces in front of the camera. So I would think it would be imperative, if we were able, to get up there as soon as possible and to see exactly what is going on in order to circumvent some of those accusations.

• 0920

The Chairman: Okay. I'll check, Wayne, with you and then with Carmen.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chairman, I think we absolutely must deal quickly with the seal issue. Peter's right, there have been a number of incidents on the ice off Prince Edward Island, actually. The coast guard, though, is trying to protect the members of the IFAW themselves from trouble. They have to understand that fishermen are quite angry in terms of some of their tactics when fishermen are trying to make a livelihood, and I think the coast guard and other officials are trying to do everything they can to prevent some kind of violent disruption. I'm meeting tomorrow with the IFAW and a number of British MPs in Prince Edward Island to talk about the issue.

As far as the committee goes, I believe that at our earliest opportunity we should meet on seals and, if possible, use our own travel points to go to Newfoundland and look at the seal herd. The hunt would be still be on, I understand, around April 5, 6, and 7. We might be able to make arrangements with the coast guard or someone else to take us out on the ice, as long as we could get to one of the airports in the area.

The Chairman: Carmen.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): As a member of this committee, I was very disappointed that we weren't able to work this particular item in when we had originally planned, Mr. Chair and members. It's time to separate pith from myth. I don't have a predisposition toward this issue, and as one member of the committee, it would be very helpful to me, Mr. Chair, to get out and see what's actually going on. I'm all in favour of it.

The Chairman: Claude.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I agree. If, despite the moratorium on cod fishing imposed five or six years ago, stocks still haven't increased in Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec, then I think it's important for us to examine the issue of the seal hunt as soon as possible. I'm happy to see that my colleagues feel the same way this morning. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Paul.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Mr. Chairman, I likewise support the view we ought to be out there. I'm just wondering how late we can go out there and still see the sealing operation. I think it's important. It's unfortunate that we didn't go when we were to go, but we have to move on with this issue. I don't think we can speak from an informed position unless we ourselves see what is actually going on out there. So I would encourage that we move quickly. If it's possible in this sealing year, we'll have to do it now.

The Chairman: Even though we have tabled in the House a request to go, which was never debated, it would appear that in terms of the time to see the hunt, it would not be possible to arrange it through the committee. The alternative would be to make arrangements as individuals of a collective group to perhaps go to Labrador or St. Anthony and to travel at our own budget expense.

According to what Lawrence tells me—and I'm only an observer—it would appear we could go as late as the end of the first week in April, in other words, during our two-week House break. Does anyone have a suggestion on what we might do there? Wayne, would it be possible to pick a few dates and try to arrive—

Mr. Wayne Easter: What I'd suggest, Mr. Chairman, is that I could talk to DFO in the area to make sure they will know. They are still doing a survey. They're monitoring the seal hunt. They will know what the last available date to go would be. I was told that April 7 would likely be the last potential date. The ice is still up. They're still whelping. We'd have to check to see where we would have to land and whether or not coast guard aircraft are available to take us out over the seal hunt.

• 0925

I could find out what the date could possibly be, whether we can get the coast guard to take us out, and what airport we'd have to land at. Then it would be up to members to decide whether they want to use their personal travel points to get to that location.

The Chairman: Are we satisfied, then, with that approach to it?

Mr. Wayne Easter: I'll let you know by e-mail on Monday or Tuesday.

The Chairman: Yvan.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Iles-de-la- Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): I also think that members have a responsibility to inform themselves personally about the seal issue. I would always encourage members to gather as much information as they can on the subjects that the committee proposes to examine.

However, Mr. Chairman, I wonder how we will be able to draft a report on behalf of all committee members if members go about gathering information on their own. If we go off on our own, that means that neither the clerk nor the research assistant will accompany us, unless someone is generous enough to cover their travel expenses. Therefore, I wonder if the committee should adopt this approach. However, I wouldn't want to discourage personal initiative. I know that some members seated here at the table have observed the seal hunt, whereas others have gone seal watching. If Wayne wants to organize something, then I will support him. I know that it would be rather difficult for me to take part in a trip like that, but that doesn't necessarily make me an opponent of the seal hunt. I enjoy seal products and I will always be a supporter of the seal hunt.

While I'm at it, Mr. Chairman, would you also like to hear my views on the other suggested topics, or would you prefer to wrap up your overview of this first item?

[English]

The Chairman: I think, Yvan, we've fairly well finished with that one. It'll be a personal visit, as members of the committee, if we do go. For those who are able to participate, it certainly would improve their understanding of what we might hear before committee. I'll leave it at that, unless other members.... And we would move on—

Mr. Wayne Easter: I have just one last point, and I reluctantly bring this up, Mr. Chair. The reason we haven't gone is because of the impasse we have between ourselves and the Reform Party. Somehow we have to get over that impasse so that the committee can in fact travel as a committee, whether it's on seals or other travel we have to do. We have to make an effort to get over that.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Wayne, I'd be quite happy to meet with you and Charles and our whip, if you want. As you know, this is a party decision of the whip. We've met before, and I'd be quite happy, as I said before, to meet again if you want. I'm more than willing to sit down and try to resolve this, but it's a party decision and we have to involve the whip, as you know. But I'm always open, and you know that has been a standing offer.

The Chairman: Carmen.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Mr. Chairman, I've had a crack at addressing the committee, but I'm not exactly sure about the procedure now.

The topics suggested by the past steering committee include the aboriginal fisheries strategy and the Pacific Salmon Commission. There are, I think, three items that might involve travel, although I'm not sure. I would suggest that we get some kind of arrangement made as soon as possible. I can't see it not affecting all of the issues on the list that involve any kind of travel. I, for one, am not prepared to travel somewhere because it pleases one party or another and not be able to travel anywhere else, and I'm making myself very clear on that. Either we get an arrangement or we don't and we go nowhere.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I know everybody is looking at me, but it's a party decision. Wayne and I have met before with our whip, and I'm quite prepared, as I mentioned to Wayne last time, to have another discussion with our whip to see if the issues can be resolved.

• 0930

The only other thing I want to add with this list is that when we come back there's half of April and May left; we have a month and a half. There's not a lot of time, so my only comment is that, whatever we do, we should try to make sure we can finish before the summer break and that we don't bite off more than we can chew.

Mr. Wayne Easter: On this point, Chairman, I'd suggest, then, if we could.... I don't know when you're back, Charles. Are you back the first Monday?

The Chairman: I should be. I could be, yes.

Mr. Wayne Easter: If it's possible, Gary, if you could line it up with Chuck, we could have a meeting on either the first Monday or Tuesday back—

The Chairman: Mr. Easter, I think there is a matter here, though, of diplomacy. I'm not sure if we should be summoned to meet with his whip, and I would be reluctant to take part in that. As chairman, I will talk with our whip and see on what level of diplomacy this thing would have to be arranged.

But, Gary, for your information, I would be reluctant to call on your whip to come and meet with me, and as chairman, I would be reluctant to be summoned to his office to meet with him on this issue.

I think we have to arrange this through the whips and—

Mr. Gary Lunn: Sure. The only point I'm trying to make is that this is a party thing. With the Reform Party, in fact, there have been discussions to even elevate this committee travel thing with respect to this issue. I'm just trying to show that I'm fully prepared to cooperate. Wayne and I have had discussions back and forth, and I think it can be resolved if we all sit down in the same room and want to discuss it.

So it's not about summoning one person to another person. I would even suggest that if you want to get past the formalities, let's try to do it in the next couple of hours as we're debating Bill C-27. If we're all in the House, go find Chuck, and if you want to bring up Bob Kilger, go get Bob Kilger. You can do it formally or we all can say, “Let's all go jump in a room, there are some issues that have to be resolved.”

It's really about cooperation, and I mean that seriously. I'm not trying to summon anybody, but it's at a party level, so if we want to resolve it, we all have to sit down and see if we can resolve the differences. It's not my decision, it's from the party.

I think we should even try to do it today, if you want. I'm flying out at 3 p.m., but if we sit down for half an hour you might be able to resolve it.

The Chairman: Gary, you speak to Chuck on this. I have replied to Chuck's first letter and also information on our discussion on the issue, and I think he has that back in his office. I don't mind meeting. I don't want to get this thing escalated any more than it is, for sure.

Yvan, you had the floor on the next issue before you were interrupted.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: We have quite a day ahead of us in the House because we are scheduled to consider Bill C-27 at the report stage.

Could we now turn our attention, Mr. Chairman, to the future business of the committee? On glancing at the list of suggested topics, I note that there are some that we haven't yet been able to get to.

First, we have to settle the travel issue and make sure that we are here close to Parliament when we return from the Easter break, since the House is planning to proceed with the third reading of Bill C-27 on, I believe, April 15. We have to be certain that we are here from the Tuesday to the Thursday so that we can wrap everything up.

Still with a view to preparing our response to the government on the East Coast report, I would like us to draw the attention of members to certain management considerations. At our last meeting, we met with Mr. Wiseman and his assists who discussed the management of NAFO with us . Mr. Wiseman pointed out that NAFO was looking at ways of dividing up stocks of new species. I would like us to invite a representative of the department to come here and tell us more about this matter. If we don't have anyone specific in mind, I'd like to suggest Ms. Yvette Kieran. She has written a paper in which she compares the French and Canadian fisheries management styles. I'd like members to familiarize themselves with this paper, a copy of which I have received in French. Perhaps we could have this document translated. It is my understanding that Ms. Kieran is on assignment with Environment Canada. I could get in touch with her and see if she can come here to answer members' questions.

• 0935

The interesting thing about the French model is that it could help us avoid disputes in the gulf over the distribution of stocks. The French model refers to relative stability criteria. I think this notion would be useful in terms of ensuring peace and harmony in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I'd like us to examine these models so that we can make subsequent recommendations to Mr. Anderson. I remind committee members that one of the recurring observations in our East Coast report was that the industry as a whole is critical of the manner in which the fishery is managed by DFO and of how TACs are set. I'd like us to use our time here in Ottawa to reflect further on this very important issue.

I concur with Mr. Cummings' proposal regarding the Nisga'a study. I'm always interested in hearing about what's going on in this area. In fact, all of the suggested topics interest me. However, I'm particularly interested in the East Coast report and in fisheries management. That's why I would like us to look at some of these new management models.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that we need to plan our schedule accordingly because during the week of April 20, I believe,—the parliamentary secretary can confirm this to me later—the Auditor General is slated to table his report. I have learned that this report will include several more chapters on the fishery, in particular on TAGS. We need to set aside enough time to examine these chapters and, if necessary, invite the Auditor General here to testify. This is a critical issue because, as everyone knows, the TAGS program is ending shortly. Payments under the program will cease in May 1999. People have received their final cheque. Perhaps we should familiarize ourselves with some of the material so that we are prepared to weather the spring storm that could be brewing over the Maritime provinces.

[English]

The Chairman: With the committee, we have one day now for the minister. We have roughly three days allocated to the seals. You're tying this in now with the Auditor General's report that is coming out. I saw the overall outline of some of that. I would think, Yvan, to look at this east coast report and tie it in with TAGS and that would take at least two days of hearings.

Are other committee members in favour of spending two days looking at the aftermath of the east coast report and the Auditor General's report in terms of how it affects the east coast fisheries and TAGS, which was part of that east coast report?

Wayne.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think we should follow up on it. I think I indicated to the committee on management previously that there was a fair bit of documentation put out. I forget whether it was Iceland or Norway, but there was a study done in which the Institute of Island Studies in P.E.I. was involved. It was very good documentation in terms of management plans elsewhere. I think I intended to send it to committee members, but I don't believe I did. So I'll check. If I didn't do that, I will.

It's something along the line that Yvan was talking about in terms of the thesis, but it gives a perspective on what is happening with management elsewhere. I could make sure I have this information to you prior to that discussion as well. I think it would be important.

The Chairman: So we're satisfied then, with two days on that? Yvan, would you be?

John.

Mr. John Cummins: One of the problems I have with this is that a lot of this issue I think is really HRD. I think we get sidetracked on these—I don't know how to describe them—welfare issues that aren't our area of expertise.

If you look at the history of the thing, that's one of the reasons this TAGS program or NCARP got into trouble in the first place. This was because the Department of Fisheries was managing this social program and it's beyond our area of expertise. I think there are critical fisheries management issues we should be looking at. I think what we should be doing with some of these—I use the word “welfare” for want of another word—programs is encouraging HRD to be responsive to the specific and special needs of the fishing community. But I hate to see us get sidetracked on that issue.

I don't know the first thing about delivery of those kinds of programs. I don't want to say I'm not interested, but it's just beyond my area of understanding. There are committees here that know how to deal with that stuff and how to ensure that those moneys are effective. I think we should be encouraging them to do it, not us.

• 0940

The Chairman: I'm also looking at the time now. Some of you have to go to the House for a debate on Bill C-27. We have probably a few minutes before a few people leave.

Yvan.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I'll be very brief, because I don't want to miss this morning's debate.

I'd like John to know I think it's important that we focus on the AG's report because DFO hasn't stated clearly yet how, once the TAGS program is ended, it plans to manage the fishery. Everyone agrees that the industry needs to be rationalized, but the way to accomplish this and the objectives haven't yet been determined. Human Resources Development doesn't know yet who'll be declared surplus or how many fishers will have to be re-trained.

I think we have a responsibility to intervene to help the department or the government. In any event, as a sitting member of this committee, I'd like to make some suggestions and identify those with whom we could work.

Once we know where we are going, it will be much easier for Human Resources Development Canada to provide career counselling to those would have been declared surplus. The department can come to some kind of agreement with the provinces to retrain these individuals. The Constitution stipulates that Canada, working through DFO, is responsible for the fishery and that is why we must help industry workers.

[English]

The Chairman: Thanks, Yvan.

Without any more on the issue, yesterday the Globe and Mail carried an article about how many licences were retired on the west coast, which is similar to the east coast. So it's licences as well as benefits, John. We hope the TAGS program from a fishery point of view has retired a good number of people from the fisheries. I'm not sure again.

Okay, Wayne.

Mr. Wayne Easter: The book I'm talking about is talking about management, not retirement programs. John, it's looking at management in some of the other fisheries worldwide and perhaps what we could learn from that. That's what we ought to take more so to the committee. Perhaps we need to look at how the implications of TAGS affect fishermen in the communities as well. Primarily, the emphasis is on what we should be learning from others in terms of managing the fishery.

Mr. Chairman, given what happened at the environment committee and the fact that we had the commissioner for aquaculture here and there was some concern raised by the opposition parties, I do think we need to do a very serious study into aquaculture, both on the east coast and the west coast. We need to study its implications short term and long term, its potential. In central Canada as well there have been some concerns over not being able to use some of the abandoned mines for aquaculture and such. So I think we need to spend a fair bit of time looking at that issue in depth.

The Chairman: We have three weeks outlined. We do have a long haul here after we come back, because we go through until the May break.

Wayne, you're suggesting we move on to aquaculture and marine parks, then, which ties us in with two other different...that's with heritage, isn't it? The other one's with environment.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I'm not saying a subcommittee, Mr. Chairman. I'm saying on our own. I've talked to the chair of the environment committee. They seem to have rejected the idea of a subcommittee.

The Chairman: Is there a consensus that we move on? Our next order of—

Mr. John Cummins: Where are we in terms of these subcommittees? It's been rejected by the environment committee. So that's the aquaculture one out.

Mr. Wayne Easter: The chair said he's not interested.

The Clerk of the Committee: Did you read the document I handed to everybody? The Bloc has given a notice of motion to the environment committee to concur with setting up a joint committee with the fisheries committee.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Okay, where?

The Clerk: It's in the blues from the environment committee. They talk about it in there and they're probably going to do something about it.

Mr. Wayne Easter: All I'm saying is that in discussions I had with the chair, Bill, he wasn't interested.

The Chairman: I have a thought on that. I have written to Mr. Caccia and asked for something definite on it. If it is approved, if it comes back for a subcommittee, I would probably ask that Carmen chair that subcommittee, although I haven't talked to Carmen about this yet. As a committee, we would pick the members of that committee. You guys are the vice-chairmen, so I would ask you just to notify the other members of our committee to give some thought to who we should have on that subcommittee, in order to look after the fisheries side of that issue.

• 0945

Mr. John Cummins: That's the aquaculture one, right?

The Chairman: Yes, that's the aquaculture one. If we have a joint subcommittee, what I'm saying as chairman is that I would ask Carmen, as our vice-chairman, to chair a subcommittee that would participate with the environment committee in looking at that legislation.

Carmen, I didn't mean to put you on the spot on that, but—

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I would be interested in doing that, Mr. Chair.

Mr. John Cummins: What happened with the marine parks issue?

The Chairman: I have not had anything back on the marine parks issue, except for concerns from Newfoundland that were raised in the House. That's the only point I've had with that, John.

Mr. John Cummins: We were going to try to get a joint subcommittee going. Did we get anywhere on that at all?

The Chairman: It may have been expressed here, but it certainly was not followed through. It hasn't been formalized. Let's put it that way.

Mr. John Cummins: Maybe you can bring it back up, because that's an important one.

The Chairman: So you're satisfied, John, with going down to item 7 as our next—

Mr. John Cummins: I'm just trying to get information here, that's all.

The Chairman: But would you be satisfied with the clerk working towards those two, aquaculture and the marine parks, as the next orders of work?

Mr. John Cummins: I'd like to see something happen on that, because I think the marine parks thing is a bit of a fiasco. In fact, there was an article about it on CTV this morning. It was a recurring item about the problem with sea otters in California. Did you see that item? If you watch Canada A.M., you would have seen it. It was on about three times while I was watching it. There was an attempt to create a marine park in California, but it went awry. It just didn't work.

For these guys in heritage, I don't think anybody really has the expertise or the interest in terms of looking at the impacts that these parks can have. I think this committee could make a valuable contribution to that, but it's been two weeks since that motion went to the Canadian heritage committee, and we still haven't heard anything back.

The Chairman: For your information, the clause-by-clause of Bill C-48 is before the heritage committee today.

Are there other topics this morning, or can we adjourn?

Mr. John Cummins: What's the timetable on the Nisga'a thing? What has the committee done on that? These guys cancelled out on us. When are they coming?

The Chairman: Bill probably could inform you, but it's my understanding that Nisga'a is at a bit of a standstill. John, I know you would like to get that on the agenda here, but it's apparently treading water for a little while.

Mr. John Cummins: Why? The treaty has been signed, so you would assume that the government knows what the issue is. Where are they?

The Chairman: It's my impression that bureaucrats have been involved with it, but I don't think it has been presented to the House for consideration yet.

Mr. John Cummins: The minister has signed the treaty.

Mr. Wayne Easter: The minister has signed the treaty, which is an agreement in principle.

Mr. John Cummins: No, the agreement in principle was signed in 1996. The treaty has been signed.

Mr. Wayne Easter: The treaty has been signed, but the clearer definition of what the understanding of the treaty means on both sides is still being discussed. It's still under discussion, John, and they're not in a position to be able to put their firm position forward.

Mr. John Cummins: Oh no, wait a minute now. Let's just be clear on this. The agreement in principle—

The Chairman: Have we adjourned?

Mr. John Cummins: No, we haven't.

The agreement in principle was signed in 1996. In the two years that followed, the legal wording was put into effect. The minister, along with the minister from the province of British Columbia and the leadership of the Nisga'a, signed the agreement. What we had then requested was that the department give us a briefing on the fisheries components of the treaty. The legal language has been put in place on that and the treaty has been signed, so what's the holdup?

The Chairman: John, I'm not sure it's really a treaty that has been signed.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes, it has, absolutely.

• 0950

The Chairman: A treaty is not a treaty until it has been approved by the participants.

Mr. John Cummins: It has been.

The Chairman: The only participants that have approved it, from my understanding, are the Nisga'a, and neither the Province of British Columbia nor the federal government have been involved in approving it.

Mr. John Cummins: They approved the final agreement. That's what the Nisga'a approved. The agreement is being debated in the legislature of British Columbia currently, and it can't be changed. What's there is now there. All we're asking for is a briefing to tell us what the fisheries component of the treaty is.

Mr. Wayne Easter: John, the bottom line on it is that they're not in a position to come forward and tells us that as yet. We've made the request—

Mr. John Cummins: They've signed the document. They should know what they've signed.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I know. That's all I can tell you at the moment. They're not in a position to be absolutely—

Mr. John Cummins: We as a committee should be demanding it.

The Chairman: Mr. Steckle has made a motion of adjournment.

Gentlemen, the meeting is now adjourned.