FISH Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 4, 1997

• 1534

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): The meeting will come to order. Our order of reference is pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the study of west coast fisheries.

• 1535

From Vancouver, via video teleconferencing, we have the executive director of the Pacific Salmon Foundation, Rich Chapple.

Mr. Chapple, can you hear us?

Mr. Rich Chapple (Executive Director, Pacific Salmon Foundation): Yes, I can. Good afternoon. Can you hear me?

The Chairman: Yes, that's fine, Mr. Chapple.

Here in Ottawa we have representatives from the Reform Party of Canada, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party of Canada, the Bloc and the government side. We'll ask you to make an opening statement and then we'll ask you some questions.

Mr. Rich Chapple: Thank you very much. First of all, my thanks to the committee and in particular to John Duncan, who contacted me and made the initial invitation.

I'm not certain of the context of your discussions today, but I'm going to focus on the importance of habitat restoration and enhancement on the Pacific coast, and in particular the role the organization I represent, the Pacific Salmon Foundation, takes in that.

First of all, habitat restoration and enhancement is a key component if you can compartmentalize the things that need to be done to ensure a sustainable resource here on the coast. Timing is an issue.

Although there are some problems in habitat protection, by and large a lot of legislation has gone through federally and provincially to protect habitat. Harvest management is largely under control. Although there are still some issues, significant moves have been made by the federal government. I'm referring to timber harvest regulations and fleet rationalization. Those things are being addressed.

The other half of the equation is habitat restoration and enhancement. It's essential if we are to realize some of the benefits from the significant contributions that have been made in these other areas. It's an important part of the puzzle, separate from harvest management, sectoral allocations and some of the other things you're addressing.

There's also some urgency if we are to deal with the effects of some declining stocks. There is also perhaps a larger problem and an intimidating one, which is climate change. I'm referring to ocean survival and the things we can't do anything about. We can do something about habitat restoration and enhancement.

I'd like to zero in now on the role the Pacific Salmon Foundation plays. We have a key niche in the formula for success. First of all, to give you some background on the Pacific Salmon Foundation, it was formed in 1987 and is federally incorporated. It's a registered charitable organization. We operate separately from governments, although we work very closely with them.

Our structure is like a corporation. We're governed by a volunteer board of directors. We have representatives or members, and we look for members with individual commitment to what we do from all user groups, such as the aboriginal, commercial and recreational fishery sectors as well as business, the general public and the resource industry.

The Pacific Salmon Foundation was set up to play a role in meeting a need that was considered difficult for governments to do, and that is to bring in private sector participation in salmon restoration. That's something I'll describe now, where we have had some considerable success.

A key thing about the Pacific Salmon Foundation is that we describe ourselves as apolitical. In other words, that's small p political. We don't get involved in allocation issues. You won't see us in the newspaper on a particular offender's case. We focus on the positive. We focus on solutions for salmon restoration. You couldn't describe us as an advocacy group, apart from being advocates for the fish and people who want to help them.

What does the Pacific Salmon Foundation do? We act primarily as a funding mechanism for community-based salmon projects run primarily by volunteers. We also establish private sector partners in specific projects and act as a catalyst for interested parties.

We raise money in the private sector and in communities for projects that are undertaken in those communities. We use a project selection committee to adjudicate and award funds. We have a series of funding criteria to support the projects. Those criteria are important.

We award funds on a matching basis. In other words, if an applicant or a volunteer group comes to us, we require it to make a contribution at least equal to the contribution it's asking for from us. That gets commitment right at the very front end.

• 1540

We also only fund capital or subset projects. In other words, we rely on the labour component coming from the volunteers, and volunteer participation itself is a key requirement.

We also require that they have the support of the local Fisheries and Oceans community adviser, which is someone who provides technical expertise to a group and makes sure they're acting within the Fisheries Act and other appropriate legislation, and that their solutions are technically effective.

We also raise funds—that's our main job—in order to support these projects. We have a contribution agreement with DFO, and we've received some funds from what's called the tidal waters sport fishing conservation stamp. Sport fishers, when they purchase a licence to fish on the west coast, also have to purchase a conservation stamp. In 1997 there was also a commercial fishers conservation stamp enacted. Some of the proceeds from those two stamps flow to the foundation, and then they go into our project fund.

We also rely heavily—and this is our area of growth—on private and corporate donations. We also undertake and organize community fund-raising events, so we will raise money in a community for the work going on in that community.

We have a few other enterprises. For instance, we operate a retail outlet at the Capilano hatchery here in Vancouver. It's a large tourist attraction, and we have some proceeds there.

If I can talk about the benefits of our formula for salmon restoration, cost-effectiveness is a key one, from government's point of view. No more than 10% of the contribution agreement amount goes towards administration of the program. In other words, what operates the budget that operates our organization comes largely from non-government sources.

Another key thing is leverage. In our formula for salmon restoration, in funding community groups we not only require matching funding, but we go out and seek additional private sector partners. It can be individuals or it can be a corporation that undertakes some business in the area where the project is going on.

We have been successful with a ratio of about 4:1 in terms of leverage. That means that for every dollar Pacific Salmon Foundation puts forward, we're seeing around four dollars coming back into that project. So the matching formula is a very good one.

Another key aspect of all this is that the money goes primarily to volunteers to do the work. If I can talk a little bit about the significance of volunteerism, it's a very, very powerful dynamic. It establishes lasting partnerships. When people volunteer their hard-earned time and money in their local community, that's a powerful thing. It's not something you can buy easily. We try to support that, and consider it a main pillar of our program.

When these programs work well, they establish very lasting partnerships, and at very low cost to government. If I can give you just a brief example, there was an event that took place recently in West Vancouver, on the north shore of Vancouver around a place called Brothers Creek. It was a kind of a celebration, if you will, of a group of people outlining what had been accomplished.

The Salmon Foundation was a partner in this. If I could list the other partners, you'll get a sense of what takes place here. There was DFO's participation. There was the corresponding ministry of environment at the provincial level. There was the local municipality, the local governments. There was the water district, a ratepayers association, an upland owners group, a real estate developer, a golf course, a community college, schools, a fish and game club, a church and a synagogue. These were all interests around a particular stream that had an interest in restoring it.

To put this in perspective, this is a stream that people my age recall seeing thousands of fish in every year. Then with development the stream was chopped up, a lot of habitat was occluded for fish, and that habitat was no longer available. It was the efforts of all of these people coming together that led to the actual restoration.

My key point here is that it didn't take a lot of money—in particular, very little money from government. The Pacific Salmon Foundation was a small financial player in it, and DFO was even smaller. It provided, through the community adviser, the expertise to get the job done, but it was the capturing of the interest of all the participants in the area, the people who really live in that community, that made a difference.

The actual cost to government was just a few thousand dollars, and there were probably a couple of hundred thousand dollars of expenditures to get the job done. In terms of job, I mean pulling up concrete flumes, pulling out culverts and restoring habitat, while still maintaining the appropriate infrastructure for the community.

• 1545

That's just an example, and there are many, many projects around British Columbia like that. That's only a snapshot.

The foundation has funded in its ten years 150 projects, contributed about $1.3 million, and I referred to our four-to-one success rate with leverage funds. That generated about $4.5 million to $5 million worth of other contributions. Then keep in mind that the money goes to volunteers to get the work done.

To sum up, what does all of this mean? I think the Pacific Salmon Foundation taps into a very powerful dynamic that is important for fisheries restoration. It's not top down, it's bottom up. It's true grassroots.

If you look at what was once considered the abundance of salmon on the west coast, that was the result of an aggregate of many different streams that were healthy. Now we have some streams that are healthy, some that are not, and many where the stocks are depressed.

Now what we're seeing is, stream by stream, individual communities getting behind their stream. What they undertake is doable, it's affordable. There's the commitment to do it, and it gets done. It's not something easy for governments to do from the top down. It wouldn't be easy to establish a program that ensures that this happens. What really needs to happen is to have support for that energy that's already there.

I would say there's a window of opportunity over about the next five years for this dynamic to be maximized. People in British Columbia, and indeed outside British Columbia, care a lot about the Pacific salmon resource and are prepared to do something about it. When we empower people on the local level to do it, we have some considerable success and a chance for salmon restoration.

The essential components, I believe, for salmon restoration are community involvement, where you get all levels participating, both private and public sector, and you also get private sector commitment financially.

It's a very useful program, and it's growing like crazy. Frankly, the biggest part of my job is fund-raising. It's also the easiest part of my job, because when I paint this picture that I've just painted for you for others who are potential contributors, the buy-in is there. I'm finding that with governments. We've had some good programs with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They support what we do. We get support at the provincial level, and from across the communities of the coast as well.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Chapple. Rich Chapple is the executive director of the Pacific Salmon Foundation, appearing from Vancouver.

We're also joined at our committee table by Marcel Lefebvre and John Young from the Community Fisheries Development Centre—I think that's correct—and by Russ Hellberg, Christine Hunt and Dan Edwards from the West Coast Sustainability Association. We will now ask these witnesses to make a statement before the committee, after which the floor will be open for questions from all of the political parties represented here today.

I have a point of clarification before we continue. At 4.30 p.m., we go to Victoria. Mr. Gary Lunn from British Columbia, a member of the committee, wishes to table some very serious allegations he is making concerning DFO science. We'll do that—if that's all right with you, Mr. Lunn—either at 4.30 p.m., when we go to Victoria for more witnesses, or following the Victoria meeting. We won't forget you before the committee meeting is over.

Could we now hear from the Community Fisheries Development Centre and from the West Coast Sustainability Association—opening statements, followed by questions.

Mr. Marcel Lefebvre (Community Fisheries Development Centre): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to apologize for being a few minutes late. We had a meeting with Minister Anderson, and it was a little difficult finding the place here.

First, I want to introduce very quickly the people who are here, because I think it's important for the committee to know their backgrounds.

• 1550

Christine Hunt is a board member of the Community Fisheries Development Centre but also represents the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia, and she is also a special native adviser to the minister, Corky Evans. Dan Edwards, as I said, is with the West Coast Sustainability Association but also is very instrumental in developing strategies for our group on the west coast of the island. Russ Hellberg has been the mayor of Port Hardy, is the chairperson of the Coastal Communities Network, and is also one of the founding members of the Community Fisheries Development Centre. Finally, John Young, the staff and I, are from the Community Fisheries Development Centre.

Our speakers are going to be John Young and Russ Hellberg, and the rest of us can answer some of the questions that may be asked.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Mr. Young.

Mr. John Young (Community Fisheries Development Centre): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just thought I'd tell you a little bit about the Community Fisheries Development Centre, the CFDC, and then go on to talk about the nature of the work we've been doing and the scope of the problem that we see facing the west coast fisheries.

CFDC is a not-for-profit society. It was established in January 1997. It was initially created to respond to the socio-economic crisis on the west coast that resulted from the implementation of the Mifflin plan. When the Mifflin plan was introduced, B.C.'s job protection commissioner estimated that 7,800 direct jobs would be lost as a result of the plan's implementation, and that a further 19,500 indirect jobs would also be affected. In the face of that, and in the face of early indications that these numbers would be borne out, the fishermen's union, UFAWU, and the Native Brotherhood, began some sort of short-term crisis management and remediation work in terms of developing job creation programs in order to get income into people's pockets—people who had formerly made a decent living in the fisheries.

As that work got under way, it quickly became apparent to all the people involved in designing and delivering those programs that the crisis under way was of a more long-term and structural nature; that we were looking at an industry in transition; and that we needed to look at an effective, comprehensive industrial adjustment strategy as a result, a strategy that would take more than a few months here or a few months there of project work. We began to design such a strategy and to make proposals for how such a program might unroll.

We did nine months of program delivery between January and August, our first reporting period—the clerk of the committee is now handing out some material—and our report on that reporting period and a backgrounder about our organization show some of the statistics and talk about the work that we've done.

In the first nine months of operation, we had over 2,000 people come through what we call our employment assistance service. We employed over 1,700 people in a series of projects up and down the coast. Many of these people indicated the need and desire for further training and work experience, either because they needed to supplement their fishing seasons or because they wished or felt compelled to leave the fishery entirely.

Since August 1 of this year, we have now had over 4,200 people registered with our local offices up and down the coast. Again, they're people who say they need immediate assistance in the way of transition programs. These aren't people who are accustomed to turning to the government for assistance; these are people who have traditionally made a good livelihood in the fishery on the west coast, and who are now in a position in which they're losing their boats, their homes, and their communities.

They're turning to us, what with us having raised an expectation that there was a transition program in place that we were able to deliver, and that we would be able to assist people in moving from where they were in the fishery to where they need to get to—either back into another part of the fishery that's value-added, some other activity, or outside the fishery entirely.

So there's the magnitude of the problem. What we're now talking about, what we're proposing, is an active transition program that builds on the work we've already done in the last year. By “active”, we mean that every participant in the program would undergo a period of training and work experience, during which time they would receive what we're calling a living wage. Nobody would receive the living wage if they weren't engaged in the program, the program being training and work experience tied directly to identified economic opportunity either in their community or in their region.

I think it's important to recognize that when you're looking at an industry adjustment program, you must recognize the differences between the east coast and the west coast, and the experiences on both coasts.

In B.C., with the Pacific salmon, we have a resource that can be regrown. As the previous presenter was saying, I think an enormous amount of work needs to be done in terms of environmental remediation, habitat renewal and resource renewal. A lot of that work is being done ably by volunteer groups and community groups, but we think there is a tremendous need for a coherent, coast-wide strategy that would look at regrowing the resource, and doing so in a comprehensive fashion. It makes tremendous sense to us to have displaced fishermen and shore workers doing a significant amount of that work and earning a decent livelihood while they do it.

• 1555

I think it's also important to note that B.C. has a relatively dynamic economy, certainly by comparison with some of the hard-pressed maritime provinces. There are jobs for people who need to leave the fishery. There are places for many of them to go.

What we're asking for is a three-year commitment from the federal government. Having announced the Mifflin plan, the previous Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Mifflin, said he and the federal government would make available $30 million or, to quote him, “whatever it takes” to mitigate against the impacts that would be caused by implementation of the plan. To date, the federal government has spent somewhere in the neighbourhood of $20 million on industry adjustment.

It's important to note that of the $20 million or so, a significant amount of it—and an unknown amount, unfortunately—would have gone to EI claims anyway. A number of people who were on our programs and who participated in our programs would have been in the EI stream anyway, so that wasn't necessarily $20 million earmarked for industrial adjustment. It was $20 million spent by the federal government and spent on the fishing community, but not designated for effective transition. In other words, they were just EI claims.

So what we're saying is that we need a three-year commitment. We're talking about three years because we think that, although certainly a minority, a significant number of people will need to leave the fishery and will need a complete retraining and work experience. Some of these people may need extensive college and other experiences.

Again, our expectation would be that the vast majority wouldn't require three years, but the budgetary number that we have come up with for a three-year program would be $375 million. That's an upper ceiling that we expect we would come nowhere near spending, and it's based on an assumption that 5,000 people would go through a three-year program for which they would receive $413 a week in a living wage for the entire three-year period. That figure is thrown out just in terms of framing a budget number for discussion but likely wouldn't be expended because many of them would move back into the workforce in a period of weeks or months.

So I'm going to conclude quickly by saying that in the west coast fishing community, there's a growing sense of disparity between the political will that's been mustered in dealing with the industrial adjustment in the east coast fishery and what's been done to date on the west coast. To date we've seen $3.4 billion spent on east coast fishing adjustment strategies. We have indications from the Prime Minister's office and from the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that TAGS or some version of it will be extended. So we have $3.4 billion and counting on the east coast, and we have $20 million or so, and possibly that's it, on the west coast. People are wondering why it is that we're fully supportive of effective transition programming for the east coast, and why it is that the west coast isn't entitled to a similar political will and commitment by the federal government to communities in crisis.

So there's that, and there's also a tremendous amount of interdepartmental uncertainty between Minister Anderson's and Minister Pettigrew's offices. This has plagued us in attempting to advance a coherent strategy for the work we want to do. Mr. Anderson's department, and that of his predecessor minister, created the problem. I suppose they created an HRD problem, since it's now Mr. Pettigrew's purview to address that, but there has been a tremendous amount of not bickering, but of back-and-forth between political advisers to the two ministers.

They're saying it's Mr. Anderson's lead first and foremost on this issue. His staff is saying back to us that it's actually Minister Pettigrew's. We've gone through a back-and-forth for a couple of months on this, and while we've doing this back-and-forth on whose departmental responsibility it is, thousands of people on the west coast have been waiting to see where the federal government will go and what kind of commitment can be mustered.

I'll conclude my remarks there and turn the presentation over to Russ Hellberg.

The Chairman: Mr. Hellberg.

Mr. Russ Hellberg (Community Fisheries Development Centre): I'll be approaching this on a community basis and in terms of the effects it has been having on us.

As John has mentioned, what has been lost on a lot of people is that there are two distinct problems. One is a short-term problem that was caused by the introduction of the Mifflin plan during one of the worst salmon years going. That in turn led to basically the long-term problem. We realized that a fair amount of transition had to be done by these people and by communities, and if the Mifflin plan was left to run its normal course, it would have a devastating effect on a lot of the coastal communities.

• 1600

For instance, Masset has lost its fuel dock, fish plant, lost 40% of the salmon jobs, lost 20% of the population. Prince Rupert—I think a fair number of you have heard of that in the news this year. The average gill-netter made $8,000 last year, the average troller made $15,000, and that's up to one-quarter of what they earned before. With the added costs, a lot of these people just broke even.

As for Klemtu, DFO says the community is facing economic extinction; it lost 30% of its salmon jobs. Alert Bay lost 28%. They used to have 20 seiners; now there are only 3. Kyuquot is the same story. Ahousat lost 50% of their jobs, and Ucluelet, where Dan is from, lost 80% of their salmon jobs in 1997 from a combination of El Niño and the Mifflin plan. They lost one fish plant last year. They lost a fuel dock, and they'll probably lose another fish plant this year.

What we talked to Minister Anderson about roughly three or four weeks ago was the completion of the short-term plan. We'd like to call the short-term plan to the end of this fiscal year, March 31, 1998. They've used roughly $20 million now. That plant is just about out of money. A lot of the projects that were lined up to carry over the winter have no funding available. We're telling them that they have to give funding to tide that end over as part of Mifflin's “whatever it takes”.

Then, as the full impact of this thing hits us, what we're seeing is that we need a long-term transition. Three years should be more than enough to get the people who want to leave the industry out of it and those who want to stay in the industry transitioned to other parts.

The west coast fishery is quite diverse. A lot of stocks haven't been utilized. There are different processing methods by which we can have these people actively employed in the fishery.

As I mentioned, what we want in the long term is to retrain the fishermen who want to leave, and for those who want to stay in the industry we have a lot of stream restoration and enhancement work to do. The province is going to help on that through fish renewal.

The other thing we see as a necessary part of this transition program is to develop new value-added processing, new fisheries projects, and to develop uses for the underutilized fisheries and value-added processing. Some of these different fisheries that are available are the mackerel—which we have a great abundance of this year, thanks to El Niño—Canada crab, kelp harvesting, ocean ranching, etc.

We see the west coast problem as being different from the east coast problem in that we do have viable stocks, and they can be brought up to productive levels without too much problem, but we certainly need federal help to transition the industry, an industrial transition program for the three-year period, at which point fisheries should be back in a stable state again.

The Chairman: Now we go to Mr. Dan Edwards, from the West Coast Sustainability Association.

Mr. Dan Edwards (West Coast Sustainability Association): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for asking me to speak here to the committee.

The West Coast Sustainability Association is a non-profit association formed about three years ago. Native and non-native communities and individuals on the west coast of Vancouver Island have been fighting for the last three years against the big lie here, which is that somehow or another we have to get rid of the fishermen on the west coast of Vancouver Island and then we'll save the fish. I heard it again today. It's not the truth.

The reality is that we have to rebuild the stocks, we have to rebuild the fishing communities, we have to rebuild the faith and hope that there's a future here.

To do that, we need two things from the federal government. We need long-term strategies, working with the communities, with the province, with the non-profit organizations on the coast, and we need funding. Two things—that's what we need.

• 1605

Right now we're getting a very piecemeal approach to that problem we face, and it's killing our communities. We need to have the Government of Canada commit to the rebuilding and to the long-term sustained development of the communities and the fish of B.C.

I worked for twenty years as a volunteer in enhancement projects on this coast, and it's a great thing and part of what we need. I applaud all the work that Rich has done on that behalf. But you do not steward or rebuild or look after a resource strictly with volunteers. You do it with commitment from government, you do it with commitment from communities, and you do it with funds.

I've recently formed a partnership as the West Coast Sustainability Association with the Community Fisheries Development Centre, because there needs to be a cohesive approach. To make that real, we also need to have that partnership with the federal government and we need to have that commitment to funding. There is a very real proactive building process that can take place, but as long as the big lie is in there, that somehow you have to stop developing and get rid of the fisherman, and that somehow will save the fish, we will not go forward.

Unfortunately, I heard it again today, and I'll tell you I'm really sick of hearing it. This is three times now that I've been back to Ottawa. They are only times I've ever been here in my life. It's the third time on the same issue and I haven't heard anything different yet.

The Chairman: For clarification, the big lie you are talking about, is that the phrase “too many fishermen chasing too few fish”?

Mr. Dan Edwards: That's one of them.

The Chairman: And could you tell us who made that statement, or would you prefer not to?

Mr. Dan Edwards: It's a statement that is made by the bureaucracy in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; it's made by the politicians who quite often go through the upper levels of the department and look after it, but they don't stay very long, they're not there very often, and they don't know what is happening on the coast—those kinds of issues.

The Chairman: Mr. Young.

Mr. John Young: There's another slogan that goes around: “too many bureaucrats chasing too few fishermen”.

The Chairman: That's a good twist, John. I'll use that one on the east coast.

So we have three main witnesses here today. Rich is by on the videoconferencing and we have John, Russ and Dan, plus Christine and Marcel. We'll open up our questioning.

We do have a bit of a problem on questions and answers. We only have 25 minutes to question these witnesses, and I've already received indication from Mr. Duncan, who leads the Reform Party of Canada, and Mr. Stoffer, who is giving up his time to his colleague from British Columbia.

Mr. Duncan, first.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Thank you, George. Because Rich Chapple was up first, I'm going to address Rich. There's no prioritization other than that on my part.

It was a very interesting presentation, Rich. We were at a joint function together recently in Campbell River and I think you raised about $20,000 that evening. The thing that astounded me, or that I found the most encouraging about the whole evening, was the fact that every sector of the fishing community was at the meeting and supporting your endeavours. I'm not sure that came out in your presentation, but this foundation you're now heading up is virtually unopposed from the standpoint that you are an advocate for the resources. Is that your observation as well?

Mr. Rich Chapple: Yes, it is. In regard to the point you make about using the Campbell River example of community and all of the users, and also some non-users, getting behind salmon, salmon matter to lots of people. They have a significant impact on the people, as we've heard today, who are having trouble making a livelihood from harvesting.

Obviously, that vested interest is a very important part in the whole equation and I think that is why you see users who are often in some forms fighting over fish co-operating when it comes to helping the resource. There is no question that you can get buy-in from all users, and that's really been our experience. It's key that we stay away from the other issues.

• 1610

I really do want to stress that it is a very particular focus that the Pacific Salmon Foundation takes in salmon restoration with volunteers. Just because it is a very powerful dynamic, there is certainly lots of room for other participation and we would certainly welcome it. So that's a key thing.

Mr. John Duncan: The other observation I'd like to make and hear your comment on is that we hear quite often about the large salmon runs on the B.C. coast, but in actual fact, all of the fishery has become very dependent on two major river systems. And you're focusing on the smaller systems, what you call the aggregate. That is really where fisheries management needs to go on the coast, and it's basically where the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has let the coast down, from the standpoint that they have tended to focus on the Fraser and on the Skeena.

Is this your feeling as well, that really smaller systems are what we need to focus on?

Mr. Rich Chapple: We definitely have to focus on the small systems. The large systems have produced a lot of fish, but I think it's well known—there's certainly consensus—that the health of our total coastal fishery depends upon that aggregate. So focusing on individual streams is key, and it can also benefit communities that depend upon fish in those particular streams.

So it's important not to lose sight of the individual stocks, although they're small. Add them all up, and it adds up to an awful lot of fish for British Columbians.

Mr. John Duncan: This is probably where I can move to the other witnesses, because I know they have expressed some interest in developing local fisheries to assist local communities, and I know that's part of the direction of the Coastal Communities Network and the West Coast Sustainability Association.

In terms of the larger question, the bigger proposal, which is the transition program, I think it would be important for the group to explain to the committee where the British Columbia government sits in this proposal, from the standpoint that we have now this spring a labour market development agreement between the federal government and the province. We have your proposal, which includes a secretariat, which would include the province, and yet all of the program, as it's been explained to us, doesn't put the province in the centre of this activity. I think it's important that we know where the province is coming from, as you know it.

The Chairman: Mr. Young.

Mr. John Young: The way we see it, and I think the way the provincial government sees it and have articulated to us, is that through the creation of Fisheries Renewal B.C. they're committed to working on resource renewal and habitat restoration, and restoring the resource. What they've indicated very clearly is that they took a position against the Mifflin plan, thought it was the wrong thing for B.C., and are utterly unwilling to assume any of the costs of dealing with the impacts of the Mifflin plan. So where the province is committed to restoring the resource, they were also committed to fighting Mifflin and they're unwilling to shoulder a financial burden for the impacts flowing from Mifflin.

That having been said, there's a complication in that the labour market agreement that Mr. Duncan referred to I think comes into effect August 31, 1998, and that's where the waters get somewhat murky, because what we're saying is that the federal government took a policy decision that had the effect of massively restructuring an industry and it has responsibilities to deal with those impacts.

At the same time, there's a devolution of responsibility ongoing, so our hope is to extract a commitment from the federal government. How that plays out intergovernmentally and interdepartmentally between the different layers of government we don't know. We would be happy to assist in any way we could in that process, but it's our view, and I think it's shared by the provincial government, that it's a federal government responsibility.

• 1615

Ms. Christine Hunt (Community Fisheries Development Centre ): I spoke to the minister I worked for, Corky Evans, just before this meeting and he basically said the same thing as John has said: that Fred Mifflin made a commitment to help the coastal communities and the displaced fishermen when his plan was implemented; the province doesn't want to clean up the mess the Mifflin plan has caused on the west coast; and we're in total dismay that we have this mess out there and the federal government is now not coming through with Mifflin's commitment to our community.

The Chairman: Now we go to the New Democratic Party, Mr. Robinson from British Columbia.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too want to join in welcoming our witnesses here in the committee room and Mr. Chapple in Vancouver. Because time is limited, I'll ask a couple of questions and then I want to seek some direction from the chair about procedure in the committee.

Just to be very clear, my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and I myself strongly support the proposal the Community Fisheries Development Centre has made about three-year transition funding. Frankly, we welcome the approach you've taken with an active approach in helping people make the transition and encouraging them to find new employment. I know you've made a clear distinction between the approach that's been taken on the west coast, on the one hand, the approach you propose for the next three years, and the east coast approach, the TAGS approach, on the other. I think it's important for members of the committee to understand it's a very different approach.

As a British Columbia member of Parliament, I must say when I look at $3.4 billion on the east coast—and I'm not for a minute suggesting that money isn't desperately needed; I've been down there and spoken with the folks involved—and then I look at the amount of money you're asking for for us in British Columbia, the mind boggles that there should be any question about this at all, frankly.

I have just a couple of questions in that spirit. You met just a few minutes ago with David Anderson, the Minister of Fisheries, from British Columbia. I'm wondering whether he had any encouraging news for you and whether you've been able to meet with the other minister directly involved in this area, Pierre Pettigrew, Minister of Human Resources Development, who plays a key role in this decision-making process and obviously would be playing a key role in funding. What was the outcome of your meeting with Minister Anderson, and do you have a meeting with Minister Pettigrew?

Mr. John Young: Inconclusive and no.

About the meeting with Minister Anderson, we were grateful for the opportunity to meet with him on short notice. It was inconclusive. I don't want to misstate his views, but he appears to think that there is not a significant problem in British Columbia, that there is not a need for a significant industrial adjustment program, that the Mifflin plan was fundamentally a good thing and a good idea. That certainly had its impacts, which caused him concern, but to quote him, he said “it ain't going to fly” to ask for a program requiring this magnitude of spending. He said comparisons between the east coast and the west coast were, in his words, not all that useful—because we made the point to him about the disparity in levels of commitment and funding.

So I would say it was a bit of a sobering meeting. It was short. We didn't have time to explore all the questions I think either side wanted to explore. We've done some good work and Minister Anderson's department has supported some important work on habitat money for fish. They've done good work for fish, but they haven't done a hell of a lot for people.

Do we have a meeting with Minister Pettigrew? No, we don't. We requested an urgent meeting on October 14. I sent a letter to Mr. Pettigrew. His staff weren't able to find time for us to meet. They have offered his parliamentary secretary and we'll be meeting with him tomorrow, Bob Nault from Kenora—Rainy River, which I don't think is terribly close to B.C., but I'm sure he'll be well versed in the issues, and I assume he'll report back to the minister.

• 1620

I guess our view—although we had to sprint over here after the meeting and didn't have time to consult with each other—is that we're pretty concerned there doesn't seem to be a commitment from the federal government to transition.

There's been no dispute that we have over 4,200 people who are in need. Minister Anderson hasn't disputed that and Minister Pettigrew hasn't disputed that. Nobody's disputed the B.C. job protection commissioner's report that 7,800 direct jobs would be lost and 19,500 indirect jobs would be affected. Those figures are on the table and nobody is saying they're not real. If they're real they constitute a socio-economic problem, in our view, and it's lived every day by the people in the communities. Russ, Dan and Christine can tell you about their home communities—they're devastated.

Something's not clicking somewhere and we're not sure where the problem is. We've attempted to articulate the need. We've attempted to articulate our track record to date. We're not saying we're the only vehicle, and I think the people at this table don't much care whether it's our organization or another organization that implements an effective industrial adjustment strategy. Our concern is that there are thousands of people who are watching and waiting and in desperate need. Our organization has jumped into a vacuum and is in a position to play an important role in delivering an effective industrial adjustment strategy. But to date the federals have said no.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you very much. I have just a quick question, and perhaps I'll ask the chair at the same time for some direction.

In human terms we have heard from Russ Hellberg that coastal communities are devastated by this. Masset is one, but that's repeated up and down the coast. It's not just coastal communities that are affected but also my own constituency in Burnaby, for example. A lot of fishers there are hurting badly because of this crisis.

If you don't get the kind of funding you're talking about soon, in real human terms what will this mean to the communities you represent and the people you're speaking very eloquently on behalf of in Ucluelet and communities across British Columbia? We've heard the frustration and the anger. It was no coincidence that Pat Carney spoke out in anger when she did. It was right after a meeting with folks who are speaking out on your issues and members of your group. That frustration and anger is something I think all of us from British Columbia feel. It's not a partisan issue at all.

In human terms, how much longer can you go on providing the kinds of services you provide before there is no more money? Minister Anderson told me in the House to be patient. Well, patience doesn't get you very far. So I'd like some guidance from you, Mr. Chair, in terms of the role of this committee.

This is the first time I've had the honour and the privilege of attending a committee meeting here as the west coast fisheries critic and I'm delighted to be here. But I'm wondering whether this committee is prepared, either today or in the very near future, to take a position on this question and urge some action from the ministers involved, Mr. Anderson and Mr. Pettigrew.

We have members around this table from British Columbia from all parties. If the committee is in a position to pass a motion to firmly and vigorously urge the government to respond in a positive light to these concerns, at what point would it be appropriate to put such a motion?

The Chairman: We certainly can't do it today, because we're still hearing witnesses from the west coast. We go to Victoria in a few moments. Probably in the very near future we may have some travelling to do on the west coast. But certainly it will be dealt with, and you have a very capable colleague in Mr. Stoffer, who is a member of our steering committee. We'll be discussing this at our first steering committee meeting this week.

Now, you want an answer to your question, I presume.

Marcel, I wonder if you could make the answer quite short so we can go to one more questioner. There are 26,000 people out of work, according to Mr. Young, at this point.

Mr. Marcel Lefebvre: I just want to make clear to the committee this is why we're here. We are here to try to see Mr. Anderson and Mr. Pettigrew. This isn't about politics, this is about real people who can't qualify for UI, people from all of the coastal communities.

We're just saying we put all of our things aside in forming the Community Fisheries Development Centre. It was formed and we had a good relationship with HRDC—we still do—and everyone is trying to work together. But something has stopped us as a centre from moving ahead.

Everyone thought everybody would go fishing in May and the problem was gone. It's not gone. It's worse than last year. Everybody put aside their politics and said, “Here's the Community Fisheries Development Centre. Come up with a strategy that can develop long-term sustainability in our communities.” That's what we hear, but we have 52 projects right now, ready to go tomorrow, for the over 4,000 people who are on our waiting list. Those 52 projects would take in about 700 to 800 people only, but we can't move ahead because we can't get approval.

• 1625

The Chairman: Christine.

Ms. Christine Hunt: I would like to put a human face to the native communities that are affected by the Mifflin plan. A lot of these communities were almost 100% self-sustainable, and we had a high rate of employment. At this point in time, a lot of my people don't see the light at the end of the tunnel.

In the last year there have been several suicides, and I fear that's the bottom line. These people are waiting desperately for some good news, and we're getting close to Christmas. It's bleak. I don't know how much darker a picture I can paint for you, but that's the reality of what's happening in the coastal communities.

The Chairman: Dan.

Mr. Dan Edwards: The issue around community meltdown in the smaller communities is much broader than just the number of jobs, even if the number of jobs is large. In small communities what you're seeing is infrastructure meltdown. It's awful to see. It's terrible to live through. You're seeing all the fuel docks, gear stores, and all these things just blown out of the community.

People have nowhere to go. They're told by government, “You have no jobs anyhow. Stay where you are or move away; we don't really care.” The fact of the matter is it compounds the pain and suffering in the small communities. As much as there are also fishermen in the large urban areas and they're suffering too, at least there's some potential for moving into other areas, while in these small communities, there isn't, and it's awful to live through.

The Chairman: Finally, to Mr. Easter, Prince Edward Island.

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, Mr. Chapple, you seem to indicate that you have quite a number of programs in existence that are quite successful. You're levering $4 for every $1 in terms of having funding to put into those projects. I wonder if you have any report of the kinds of projects that might be accessible to us, because that's one thing we have to look at on both the east and west coast. What kinds of programs are in fact successful?

As well, in your program development, are displaced fishers involved in terms of new jobs created in another area, or an area that's relatively close to their former profession?

Mr. Rich Chapple: In answer to your first question, if you mean can I submit a list to the committee, I'd be happy to do that. I can send some fairly extensive background that goes into detail on the kinds of projects we've supported.

Secondly, in terms of the role of the Pacific Salmon Foundation funding meshing with work done by displaced fishers, that's a new area for us. As I said, we've relied in the past heavily on volunteers. We now have a new climate here on the coast, and you just heard the reasons. It's a significant issue and problem.

We have just completed a funding round. There were a couple of examples of applications for funding to us that did include HRDC-funded work, and that's very welcome. From our point of view, what we would like to see is good effort at co-ordination, putting the right resources in the right place.

I've advocated the participation of volunteers to augment that commitment and dynamic, with displaced fishers participating in salmon restoration. That's a very good idea. We can expect to see more of that kind of thing. I would call for some co-ordination in that area; that would be very useful.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Thank you.

To the Community Fisheries Development Centre and the other witnesses, I'm very concerned about the numbers game.

You can suggest there are no politics involved in this, Svend. But I'll tell you, when I hear and see the $3.4 billion figure put out there and the $20 million or $30 million figure put out there in the areas where those people don't know, that just creates gross misunderstanding because you get talking about the numbers. There's hurt in both areas. There's absolutely no question about that. And I think it's unfair and non-productive to get into the numbers game.

• 1630

There's another point I want to make, because there is a certain attack on government here. You've mentioned that the Mifflin plan caused these problems. We're facing the same thing on the east coast...that the TAGS program has caused these problems. I submit to you that neither the TAGS program nor the Mifflin program caused these problems. It's a problem in the fishery in terms of stocks and other measures in terms of the fisheries.

Certainly, we as a government want to do everything within our power to address the human problem here as well as addressing the problem in terms of conservation of the fish stocks. I think you have to recognize that in terms of the Community Fisheries Development Centre, we got tuned up pretty well by the Auditor General in terms of how that TAGS money was spent, and I think rightly so, because we had to move it to income support in many instances because of the hurt that was there in the communities. We got tuned up pretty well. We don't want to make the same mistake on the west coast.

You've said you requested $370 million in a five-year program. You've asked for that money on the basis of a number of people at $413 per week. What kind of plan do you have in place, with accompanying projects, that can justify that kind of expenditure?

We've done this thing on the east coast. We have to be very careful about how we handle it on the west coast. And I think you have to admit—one last point, Mr. Chairman—we're talking $20 million, but the fact of the matter is that the Government of Canada has put $136 million into B.C. fisheries in terms of licence retirement and habitat projects and under HRD programming. Let's be a little fair.

The Chairman: Mr. Easter, that's the last question.

We're going to go now for the last word to Mr. Lefebvre first, and I want to hear Mr. Edwards concerning the statement.

First of all, Marcel. And that'll be the last word. You will get the last word before the committee, not the politicians. Go ahead.

Mr. Marcel Lefebvre: First of all, I want to absolutely agree with you. I hate using numbers and saying it's $20 million. When we talked about doing a transitional program, we really didn't want to put a price tag on it because, again, you would have that natural reaction that you have had around the table. You would have people asking what they are going to get for their $500 million. What we're saying here is that somebody really said to us that we had to label and we took the experience that we had from the projects we're doing.

The accountability that we have to HRD and to DFO is very clear, and we've been doing it, documenting the work in terms of the accountability, of how many people have left the industry, all of those kinds of things. The report is in front of you, by the way. We felt it was very important to get that to you so you could see there was accountability.

It is different. And I don't want to be compared to the east coast, because it's unique to the east coast. We developed a strategy plan for the west coast and we said, look, never mind the Mifflin plan or the U.S. Canadian treaty and all of those parts; the Community Fisheries Development Centre is trying to deal with the human part of it for here.

What we have tried to say—and again I want to make it clear, maybe it wasn't clear—is that we're not here to crucify the government. All we're saying is that we started something. We started a commitment with HRD and DFO in January to do a strategy here, whatever it took, and we did that. We went out and developed it in all the communities. The problem we have and that we've brought to you today is to say that from our analysis—and we put all of those things in place—you have to come to the realization that this could not be done in six months. We're saying that if you really want to move people out of the transition, you have to look at a three-year transition program that will do that kind of transition and also do the restoration, all of those things that it's done, and not get into those other parts. We don't feel that's our role, trying to come up with the impact on the communities.

• 1635

The Chairman: We're going to hear from Dan and then from Rich, and then we have to go to Campbell River.

Mr. Dan Edwards: I want to counter the statement that it wasn't government policy that created a lot of these problems. My sense of it is that government policy has a lot to do with what we're seeing here.

It may have been the collapse of the stock that created the TAGS program; that's true. There may have been problems with the stocks in B.C. that created some kind of revitalization strategy; that's true.

I was part of that revitalization strategy. The plan that came down had nothing to do with what we put in place. It had nothing to do with what happened in our communities.

For your information around this table, 12 million pounds of chum salmon were harvested in the last three weeks. That fishery is three and a half hours from where I live. Not one fish was landed where I live. Nobody in our communities any longer has a licence to fish that fishery because of the Mifflin plan, and no fish were processed in our community. Twelve million pounds of fish—that's a policy issue.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, could I ask by who?

Mr. Dan Edwards: Who harvested it, or whose policy?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Who harvested it?

The Chairman: It was by outside fishermen, because they've been cut out of the fishery—rationalization.

Mr. Dan Edwards: I think it would be a good exercise to track down where the fish went and who caught it and where it ended up.

The Chairman: That's right, Dan.

Okay, Rich, you have the final word. Could you make it fairly brief?

Mr. Rich Chapple: Yes, I can. Thank you.

I want to say that the context of my presentation should be seen in the right way. I hope the committee members don't see what the Pacific Salmon Foundation does as in any way competitive with the work in salmon restoration employing people through the fisheries centre. It's not a conflict; in fact, it could be complementary.

I would ask that the committee recognize that public participation and private sector participation, individuals and communities getting involved in salmon restoration is a powerful dynamic. It stands to last. It shouldn't be tampered with; it should be encouraged. Whatever develops in terms of the committee or the government addressing the concerns from your other witnesses, I know we can work together and I know we just have to take a long view in terms of preserving volunteer commitment and private sector contribution.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for being witnesses here today. We'll of course be reporting to Parliament on our conclusions regarding the west coast and east coast fisheries.

We now have to go—in a moment, after the TV is hooked up—to Campbell River and representatives from North Island.

Mr. John Duncan: May I just ask a question before we lose Mr. Chapple?

The Chairman: John wants to ask a question—but be very short.

Mr. John Duncan: For his clarification, when we move the television coverage, if he stays where he is can he watch the...?

A voice: No, he's out of the loop.

The Chairman: Try it anyway, Rich. Maybe you can.

Mr. Rich Chapple: Thank you very much. I'll try.

The Chairman: If the witnesses wish to stay where they are, they can. While the change is being made in the television, which they can now make, Mr. Lunn from British Columbia wants to table a document before the committee.

Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

While I have the microphone and before the wonderful Mr. Baker cuts me off, I want to thank all the people for being here. I was very moved, especially by Mr. Edwards. I've heard him speak before, and when he does speak you can tell he speaks from the heart and he's speaking what he feels, that there very much is a fishery out there and there is a problem. That's going to dovetail what I'm going to get into in a minute.

We're here for the people, and I'm going to be talking about the policies and the bureaucracies.

The Chairman: You have two minutes, though, Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: We'll stretch.

I want to thank you. I do support that there is the need for some type of future program. We just have to make sure we get the right program, and I do support that initiative.

Concerning the document I'm going to table, on Thursday this committee is going to be talking about science. We've talked in the steering committee about science being a priority. This document may have been floating around; it's been reported in a few media over the summer. This is a memorandum from the assistant deputy minister, signed off by the deputy minister to the minister, with respect to the turbot fishery between the east coast and Newfoundland.

To summarize it in a few sentences, the department and the scientific community all advised the minister not to do something. The minister, in his wonderful wisdom, went out and did exactly the opposite. He ignored the scientific community, ignored the department, ignored the scientists in the department and increased the quotas.

• 1640

I'm tabling this document—and I apologize to Mr. Bernier for not having a translated copy, but we have two days before we get to the witnesses on science; I hope you'll have a translated copy before that time—so that you all can have an opportunity to read it. It is absolute evidence that there's further continuation by the government to totally ignore the department and the bureaucracy.

The Chairman: We'll get to you in Victoria in a moment. Hang on for about four minutes.

Mr. Lunn, on a point of clarification, you're saying that this is a scientific recommendation to the minister on a quota. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Gary Lunn: That's right. This is a recommendation—

The Chairman: For this year?

Mr. Gary Lunn: —yes, directly signed off by the deputy minister for the minister absolutely not to increase the quota; it would jeopardize the principle of conservation. The minister did the exactly opposite of what he was recommended to do by all parties.

It's very frustrating for me. On April 7 of this year, the minister went ahead, on his own, unilaterally, and increased the quotas. This is an example of where the scientists are being silenced.

I believe Mr. Stoffer brought up at an earlier meeting that some of the scientists believe they cannot come to this committee and speak openly for further repercussions, for jobs within the department. This would support that proposition put forward by Mr. Stoffer.

Again, it's out there—

The Chairman: You are certain that this is an authentic document and that in fact this did take place.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Yes. There's absolutely no question in that respect.

The Chairman: Mr. Stoffer.

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

Well, Mr. Lunn, if that is a correct document, if that is absolutely true, and if the people who have signed that document or whose names are on it come forth and admit that it is, then it just confirms my belief all along.

I'd like to table a motion that we deal with this concern at our next meeting, on Thursday.

The Chairman: At the meeting on Thursday, for Mr. Lunn's benefit, we have the person in charge of science, Dr. Doubleday, before the committee at 8.45 a.m. We also have the scientist in charge of policy, on the direction of this committee, mainly to respond to the scientists who are claiming that they're being ignored.

Mr. Gary Lunn: On both coasts.

The Chairman: On both coasts.

We of course will accept the document, and we'll deal with it Thursday morning.

Is that satisfactory, Mr. Lunn?

Mr. Gary Lunn: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. That was my intention. I wanted you to give it to the committee members a few days before we dealt with the scientists so that they had time to read it before coming to that committee meeting.

The Chairman: That's very nice of you.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Are there copies available, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Copies are being run off right now.

Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Chairman, I have one question. I have no problem with tabling the document. I just wonder if we know what, in essence, the department's action was to the document.

I think between now and Thursday we should try to determine exactly what action the minister took. Was the turbot quota increased, did it stay the same, or was it reduced?

The Chairman: Are you certain, Mr. Lunn, that the quotas were increased against the scientific advice? Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Gary Lunn: Absolutely. I don't want to take up this whole meeting—

The Chairman: No, because you can't. We have to go on.

Mr. Gary Lunn: That's right. I put this out so that you have an opportunity before the next meeting. If any member of the committee wishes to speak to me, I'd be happy to talk to them and give them specifics, to save them from reinventing the wheel.

The Chairman: Okay.

I've just been handed by my researcher a paper announcing turbot quotas for the Davis Strait fishery. This is a press release that was put out. Is this the fishery the hon. member is talking about?

Mr. Gary Lunn: Is it April 7?

The Chairman: Yes, it is April 7.

Mr. Gary Lunn: That's the one.

The Chairman: Is that what you're talking about?

Mr. Gary Lunn: Yes, that's exactly correct.

The Chairman: And you're saying that was completely contrary to the scientific advice.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Absolutely, 180 degrees.

The Chairman: Was it contrary to the advice of the deputy or assistant deputy minister?

Mr. Gary Lunn: No, the deputy minister signed off on this, advising the minister not to increase the quotas, yet the government increased the quotas by over 1,000 tonnes.

The Chairman: Okay. We'll deal with this Thursday. Thank you, Mr. Lunn.

• 1645

We will now continue our evidence before the committee. From the Campbell River Community Fisheries Committee, we have Mr. Ted Martin, who is co-chair.

Mr. Martin, can you hear me?

Mr. Ted Martin (Co-Chair, Campbell River Community Fisheries Committee): Yes, I can.

The Chairman: We also have, from the North Island Fisheries Initiative, Mr. Don Fish.

Don, can you hear me?

Mr. Don Fish (North Island Fisheries Initiative): I can.

The Chairman: Are those the two witnesses we have? Do you have somebody else there in the room with you?

Mr. Don Fish: I have Mr. Rick Frey, who is the president of Local 17 of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union, the employer and the sponsor of the North Island Fisheries Initiatives program.

The Chairman: Thank you, Don. Today on the committee we have representatives from the Reform Party of Canada, the Bloc, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party, and of course the government. We are anxious to hear your testimony. You could make some opening remarks, following which we will be asking you questions. Go ahead.

Mr. Ted Martin: I'm Ted Martin. As you know, I'm co-chairman of the Campbell River Community Fisheries Committee.

Campbell River is a community of 28,000 people, centrally located on the east coast of Vancouver Island at the northwest end of Georgia Strait. The economy is based on forestry, forest manufacturing, mining, tourism, education, services, and of course fishing. We do have a hatchery on the Quinsam River.

Many different groups have been involved in trying to protect and enhance our fish. Our community fisheries committee was formed on an inclusive basis in response to a situation where the commercial recreation faction was being pitted against the commercial sector. This resulted in a well-attended meeting, sponsored by the chamber of commerce and attended by John Duncan. From that meeting of about four years ago we formed the committee, which has been meeting fairly regularly since that time.

The committee resolved that it would be primarily concerned with wild salmon stocks and it would not deal with matters of catch allocation, since there are many other groups dealing with these problems. The primary focus of the committee was to be our community of interest and it was to be primarily identified with habitat and enforcement. The chamber of commerce has continued to sponsor the organization.

You must realize that members of our committee have varied from time to time over the four years. These knowledgeable individuals also share their participation in many other organizations concerned with the fisheries.

As for my part in the process, I've been twice president of the chamber of commerce. I'm a chartered accountant. I grew up on the coast and have an early recollection of drowning. I'm a knowledgeable recreational boater, having been a commander of a Canadian Power and Sail Squadron and taught their courses for ten years. During this period I was a volunteer member of the coast guard auxiliary when it was first formed, and I took search and rescue training. I cruised the coast from Seattle to Glacier Bay, and it was possibly with this background that I continued as co-chair of the committee, along with councillor Bill Harris, who is also involved with the Coastal Communities Network.

The issues that have come to our attention are as follows: the international salmon treaty—

The Chairman: Ted, if the statement you were going to read concerns the international salmon treaty and the budget cuts and the marine protected areas strategy, and the land claims and fund-raising, we have that document and we have perused that particular document. Would you like to describe it in summary? Members of the committee have read your statement.

Mr. Ted Martin: That's fine. I wasn't aware of that.

In summary, I can only go on to say the committee exists because there are many people in the community who are interested in the fishery and in the sport of the fishery. We would encourage you all to continue to support the fishery on the coast here. Other than that, I'm quite prepared to ask any questions you may have of them.

The Chairman: You'll have some questions, Ted?

Do we have an opening statement from Don and Rick as well?

• 1650

Mr. Don Fish: Yes. I'll brief it by just saying that North Island Fisheries Initiative is a federally funded job training program. We've been in operation since January 1996. We have operated more recently, since January of this year, from Campbell River to the north end of Vancouver Island, which is the human resources development centre's strategic area of concern.

We have dealt exclusively with displaced or threatened-to-be-displaced fishing people, whether they be processors or whether they be active in the direct fishery. The local of the union that was the original sponsor still performs the management function for this particular project. We believe we have one of the most successful programs or projects of its kind in Canada, not just in British Columbia or on Vancouver Island.

I've brought Rick along. He can give some more historical data as to why the union or the local made the application in the original instance , that kind of historical data, should the committee wish.

I'm also prepared to answer any questions you may have.

The Chairman: Thanks, Don.

Rick, do you have anything to add to that from the union's perspective?

Mr. Rick Frey (President, Local 17, United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union): In terms of the first part of our programs that we had going, as Don said, we saw a need for helping displaced fishers. That's why we felt we'd approach HRDC and get some funding to help these people further their aspirations of maybe getting out of the industry, if need be. From that we've gone to this second part, which is what Don was talking about, from January 1996 until now.

That's about it.

The Chairman: You're available now to answer questions.

Our first questions will come from the Reform Party of Canada, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I'd like to thank Ted and Rick and Don for their long drive. It must be three and a half hours to Victoria, and then back up again.

I know, Don, you've been very ill. I hope you're okay there.

Taking the presenters in order, Ted, I took the liberty of ensuring that the committee had your presentation. I know how sometimes time becomes very limiting, and I know how well my colleagues read.

What I'd like to try to bring out is the fact that the reason this committee—this is from my perspective, anyway—really continued to hold together representing all the various interests in Campbell River has an awful lot to do with a vacuum in terms of how to represent the community interests when the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and other bureaucracies are unresponsive to the community's needs.

On the marine protected area strategy, on the budget cuts, on what we had happen with the coast guard, perhaps you could somehow describe why a community gets together to raise money in order to put itself in the unenviable position of having to counteract the bureaucracy. That's really saying something. I think that's really, in some respects, what this committee has been all about.

Would you like to comment on that?

Mr. Ted Martin: First of all, we are a group of stakeholders, I suppose, but we're not acting in that capacity. We're concerned with what happens to Campbell River and the people living in it as a result of things that are done quite outside any realm of influence that we can have. So the group came together on that basis and agreed that there were some things we could discuss and agree on that we hope would help the industry.

• 1655

The problem with what we're faced with—and I'm sure the stakeholder groups have the same sort of problem—is that you don't get to the place where the decisions are being made. You end up reacting to budget cuts or some other decisions that have been made and you really don't have any input into the situation.

One of the things that possibly I can use to illustrate this is the situation we ran into with the coast guard and the formation of the local marine advisory committee.

We came across correspondence that said—and I may be paraphrasing here a little bit, so this is not a direct quote, but it's certainly my impression of what was said in the correspondence—that this local marine advisory committee should be formed in order to achieve a better understanding of what the coast guard was trying to do within the community and to get the changes better accepted by the community.

Of course the people that initially went to the committee thought that they were actually going to have some meaningful input into how the decisions were made and what would happen. The result of that was that Dr. Bob Somerville, who's been involved with volunteer coast guard forever almost, and other people were completely frustrated and left the meeting, because there was just no ability to deal with what was happening.

I saw this. There were two meetings in particular, and as a result of the second meeting I came to you, John, and asked you if you would support a community action. We agreed as to what that action would be. As was set out in the submission, it involved the hiring of a consultant and going on with that and raising $5,000.

We really didn't do anything that wasn't already going on. We assisted in forming a protest that was already happening, because there were many other people in many other groups already very concerned about the proposed movement of the vessels on the coast. As a result of that, I believe that at some point somebody in authority said that they'd been misinformed as to what we proposed to do.

It's a difficult thing to do, though, and I certainly wouldn't do it again. It's just too time-consuming.

Mr. John Duncan: Yes, that was a one-time deal. Basically the committee ended up hiring a former bureaucrat to deal with the bureaucracy, and my analysis is that this was the only way any progress was made.

On the marine protected area strategy, there are concerns not just in Campbell River but also in other places on the west coast. I heard a statement made the other day that because the department has allocated $6 million to this program, you can be assured that the bureaucracy will ensure that it happens, whatever the feelings of the affected communities are. Is that program a concern to you as a community fisheries committee?

Mr. Ted Martin: It's certainly a concern to the members of the committee. As I mentioned in my submission, it's a concern to me, because even as a recreational boater I'm concerned as to my ability to go out and fish in that particular area and catch a salmon. It has nothing to do with the protection of the fish. I'm not sure what it has to do with, other than the new Oceans Act.

My understanding is that the coast is completely governed by the Department of Fisheries now in their various programs. There's no need for this additional set of bureaucracy on top of what we have already.

• 1700

Mr. John Duncan: Thanks, Ted.

I want to talk to Don and Rick. Because of the abbreviated presentation, the committee probably doesn't appreciate what the North Island Fisheries Initiative is doing in its transition program. It's a $4.2 million program. I believe that money runs out in March 1999. In order to continue the program, do you have any early estimates on what a future program might be? That's one question.

Also, the North Island Fisheries Initiative obviously covers a larger area than Campbell River's does. It would be good if you could give the committee a feeling for how you operate philosophically and a feeling in real terms for other communities not in Campbell River over which you have a current mandate, as well as a feeling for some of those groups that you hook up with or partner with, a feeling for who they are.

Mr. Don Fish: Thank you, John. Our mandate under the current project runs to March 31, 1998, not 1999. We were given permission by Human Resources Development Canada to expedite and increase our intakes in the communities of Campbell River, Port Hardy, Alert Bay, Port McNeill, Sointula and all other communities between Cape Scott and Campbell River.

In so doing we've actually expended the allocated moneys of $4.2 million in roughly 60% of the contract time. We were contracted to bring in 300 people over 16 months. We brought in 340 people in 8 months. That puts the project in jeopardy of running the duration, not necessarily accomplishing the goals. Of the 340 people we brought in so far, all had to be HRIF-eligible. They had to have exhausted EI or have existing EI.

But that leaves us with a very large group of displaced people who have not had the opportunity over the last five years to establish any EI entitlement. There are roughly 260 of those people presently registered with us who are going to require other than EI part two funds in order to receive any kind of assistance.

There's also a second mandate from HRDC, and that is that we extend our boundaries—their boundaries—to equal one another up to the east coast of the mainland. We're talking about the central coast. We're talking about Bella Bella and all the small native communities in and adjacent to the Bella Bella area. That will involve an additional 125 people that we know of now who are already eligible for our existing program were we to have funds. And it will involve another 75 people who are not eligible and would not be eligible under any circumstances for HRDC funding.

It's been our contention from day one in January 1996 that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, having made the decision to stack licences and do a number of other manipulations with the industry, should have stepped in and provided the funding, thereby eliminating the two-tier situation that exists currently in TAGS on the east coast as well as in our own enterprises here.

The situation is that the people who have had EI in the last 36 months or people who currently have it are the ones who get the assistance now. Those who have not had the luxury of having worked for a sufficient time to file for EI or who are making the voluntary choice not to file are a second-class citizenry and are not eligible for the assistance that we can provide to those other people who walk through our doors.

It's our hope that some of these general funds, or what are more normally known as consolidated revenue funds, are made available to us so that we can pass out the services and provide the kind of assistance and training to the people in the north islands and central coast to which they are entitled.

• 1705

We've been able to get 100 people placed in other than fishing occupations since January of this year. We have until June of next year to reach what we had promised HRDC we would, and that's 55% placement of all persons we come in contact with.

So really, in a very short period of time, we've had a fair measure of success by having over 100 of our participants graduate and go on to other occupations and trades as either an alternative to fishing or an option should they ever wish to leave fishing.

Those are the kinds of efforts and directions that this particular management group in Campbell River makes available to all communities. We bring training into small northern communities that perhaps would not be otherwise available because of cost, distance, and numbers of participants.

Through our collective efforts, we have a project in Port Hardy that involved 27 people at a peak, a project in Sointula that involved 34 people at a peak, and two projects in Alert Bay, a small native community. We had up to 78 people participating in the village of Alert Bay alone at its peak. Or we have the Campbell River Band, right in Campbell River itself, a Kwakiutl native community, where they have drawn as high as 37 people, all of whom were of native ancestry. Then our own home project right in Campbell River itself has had a peak of 88 people.

So we represent a wide, diverse group of people, both shore workers and fishers. We represent a diverse group of people in that 59% of our participants have been first nations people. We don't pay a lot of particular attention to those statistics, because they're not important to us as a management group, but for accountability and for HRDC purposes, we of course track them.

The Chairman: Thank you, Don, for that answer.

Sophia Leung, British Columbia.

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): I'm from Vancouver Kingsway. Before you leave, I just want to welcome you all from B.C. as witnesses to share some of your concerns with us.

Last week I made some comments in the House of Commons regarding B.C. fisheries. I have to say I learned a lot from your being here. I feel you've had a lot of success, and there's always trial and tribulation in life.

I'd like to ask a couple of quick questions.

The Chairman: We have witnesses from Victoria, but we also have in the room with us representatives from the Community Fisheries Development Centre and the West Coast Sustainability Association. So Sophia is asking questions of the witnesses who are presently before the committee, if you can just hold on for one moment.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Right.

Campbell River, to me, has had a lot of success. Congratulations; you have done well. Actually, my colleague John Duncan and I both commented on that in the House of Commons.

But I have a question. As we know, Campbell River is the place for game fishing. You have not commented on how that affects—and I'm sure it does—a lot of your income and your success. I just wanted to ask you that.

And before my friends from the CFDC leave, I just want to say I certainly do have a lot of concern for what you presented, but I want to know how much funding you have received from the federal government. You asked for three years of the budget. Also, I would like to know a little bit more about what you're presenting as the 52 projects. I'm sure there are a lot and you can give me some examples, and I'm sure this is going to be a successful endeavour.

I really appreciate it. I know you don't have time and I don't want to take too much of my colleagues' time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Lefebvre.

Mr. Marcel Lefebvre: Campbell River has been doing extremely well in what they've been doing and developing. Those other 52 projects are basically all over the province, besides the ones that Campbell River is working at the present time. These are anywhere from doing restoration of streams in small communities such as Masset to other areas, from Prince Rupert to Victoria. I would be more than pleased to sit down, because you're from our great province, and show you what these projects are about.

• 1710

But again, as Mr. Fish just outlined to you, the dilemma we all run into is the expectation of our success. We all matched or have gone beyond the expectation that was set for us. Now we're basically at the point at which we don't have funds. The 52 projects are sitting there just waiting for approval. But again, the money that was put aside that we talked about is the $22 million, in particular the $20 million, which is for all the projects, including Campbell River's, that were expenditured throughout the whole province.

The Chairman: Does that answer your question?

Ms. Sophia Leung: Yes. I did ask the Campbell River people for an answer about the game fish.

The Chairman: Ted Martin.

Mr. Ted Martin: That was about what you referred to as the game fish? Is that correct?

Ms. Sophia Leung: Yes.

Mr. Ted Martin: In my submission to you, I mentioned that the Campbell River Community Fisheries Committee came into being because of conflict between the commercial sector and what I've chosen to call the commercial-recreation faction. Nobody agrees with that definition but me.

A voice: I do.

Mr. Ted Martin: Do you? Well, I introduced it, but certainly it was not something that existed in the Department of Fisheries jargon. I think I'm a recreational fisherman, or fisherperson, or whatever I am now. I think that the people who go out and take people out fishing are really commercial, as well as the people who go out and seine the fish, trawl for them, and that sort of thing.

Campbell River has historically been a place where we have promoted the sport fishing, if you like, of the game fish, which primarily have come to be known as the coho and chinook fish. Over time, these species have been identified more and more with the recreational fishery and less with the commercial fishery, although at one time they were very important to the commercial fishery.

The problem we have with the recreational fishery is that it will continue to exist in those services that are required for the hospitality industry, or whatever. It will continue to exist as long as there is the ability for people to go out with the expectation of catching fish. There may not be any fish there, but they will continue to go out to try to catch them.

So it's important that this ability be preserved as much as possible. There was a time in the past when proposals were made to shut everything down completely. That is not the thing to be doing, because it would devastate the industry.

The other thing that has happened along those lines is the fact that, from time to time, there have been rumours about what is going to happen in the recreational fishery. You must be very careful about releasing the regulations in a timely manner, because as these rumours abound and get exported into places where people are coming from, they choose not to come here because there may not be a fishery in existence. This is because of the rumours, not because of the regulations that the Department of Fisheries brings down.

The regulations have to come down in a very timely manner or it gives rise to these rumours. You have to realize that these tourists are different people from those of the commercial fishery. You have the commercial fishery people captured. They have boats and families they have to feed and they can't go anywhere else. You can bring your regulations in from time to time and hit them over the head with them and they stay here. But the tourists aren't here. It's really critical that you understand that.

• 1715

In terms of the quality of fishing in Campbell River, unfortunately with what's gone on with our streams and everything else that is happening to us—and we're not quite sure what that is—the quality of fishing is not what it was. I don't know whether we'll ever be able to get it back to what it was.

I don't know whether that is the kind of information you were looking for, or not.

The Chairman: Yes, thank you, Mr. Martin, and also thank you to Sophia Leung from British Columbia.

We'll split the remaining time—we have about 16 to 17 minutes left—between Nova Scotia with Mr. Easter, and British Columbia with the New Democratic—

Mr. Wayne Easter: Don't say I'm from Nova Scotia.

The Chairman: From Prince Edward Island. I'm sorry.

We'll go to Mr. Easter first and then to the New Democratic Party from British Columbia.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm most pleased by the success of your program in your area. I just wish it could be successful right across to the Peace River.

On the North Island Fisheries Initiative and also the Campbell River projects, what do you see has made your programs successful versus those in some areas of the country that haven't been? Are the programs that have been successful based on alternatives that we don't have in other regions of the country, or are they based on developing new industry or new enterprises? What makes up this success?

Mr. Don Fish: I'd like to speak to that, if I may. When we determined there was a problem and I was hired to come in and provide the training directives and initiatives we felt might be needed, one of the first things we did was check the communities and determine the resources that already existed in each community in order to provide assistance to the unemployed.

Second, we got together the unemployed persons we felt were going to need these services and tried to determine in a logical fashion exactly what they expected from an organization such as ours if we were to be formed. A combination of needs analysis and existing service analysis provided us with what we think is the difference between what we do and what most other organizations attempt to do. We found out the need from the individuals, determined the direction they felt they wanted to go in, consolidated that data into sections, groups or organized matter, and then found agencies that already existed. We didn't want to reinvent the wheel.

I can refer to Mayor Hellberg, who is in your presence. He is from a community at the north end of the island, Port Hardy, where there is one of the few skill centres in the province of British Columbia. There are two on Vancouver Island; one is in Alberni and one is in Port Hardy. He has recently lost a human resources development centre there because of downsizing of the federal government, but there's still an office of those two staffs that provides most adequate service for the population of unemployed in that particular community.

In more recent times, they've also received a development centre mandate from the human resources development centre to provide ongoing, continuous training and counselling to unemployed citizenry in the Port Hardy area. That centre also operates, exists, is funded and flourishes quite well in Mayor Hellberg's area.

In addition, Mayor Hellberg has obtained approximately $60,000 through the Western Diversification Fund, with which he has hired a fisheries co-ordinator. I'm not sure what this fisheries co-ordinator has been doing since May when he was hired, but it is our belief he could have done a number of things to identify programs in his community to which funding could have been applied and employability skills developed and employment obtained.

• 1720

The final end of all of this using of existing agencies rather than reinventing the wheel or using and finding the kind of skill development that the actual participants self-identify is that they must be given an opportunity to go out and test those skills in an actual work situation.

We use a mentoring program, depending upon whether or not we're dealing with entrepreneurial pursuits. In Mr. Hellberg's area that has been most successful. About five new entrepreneurs existed in October of this year that didn't exist in May of this year. They're in everything from ecotourism to publishing to advertising to providing public service or human services.

One of the things we've found is that if we provide them with an opportunity of a work experience, where they can actually go out and use their new upgraded skills and their new skill-enhanced knowledge and they have a chance to go out and really work for two or three weeks in that particular industry or that particular occupation, whether it be cooking or heavy-equipment mechanics or whatever it might be, and affirm that this is really what they want to do, there are many occasions when these people never leave that place of work experience. They are actually hired by that employer at that place of business.

What is often lacking in these small communities, as Mr. Hellberg will be quick to tell you, is a skill base from which employers can choose. They're often faced with the necessity of taking what's there and trying to develop a silk purse out of a sow's ear, if you will.

One of the things that our particular project, with the insights that I've presently given you, has been successful in doing is giving to many employers well-rounded individuals who have learned how to get to work at 8 a.m. and who've learned how to be respectful of themselves and their families. It has given employers individuals who have learned to develop independence and not dependence, people who have developed a number of the skills that unfortunately we've deprived our brothers in Newfoundland of over the last four years through the east coast TAGS program, where they become dependent upon a cheque being handed out every two weeks without the responsibility of going out and doing something of a self-respecting nature, like getting some skill and having an opportunity to go out and put that skill in practice.

So we believe there are three or four different things that we do within our job creation partnership project under HRDC that make us successful and would be equally successful in other communities given an opportunity.

I'm not saying that the Community Futures development centres aren't valuable, because they are. But they serve a purpose different from what we provide. We provide a community—

The Chairman: I wondered, Mr. Easter, if you had anything else to add.

Then we've got to go to British Columbia to Mr. Robinson, who has been waiting.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I have one point.

I thank you for those comments, because I think they're entirely valid.

You have a fair number of criticisms, and I respect those in terms of your paper from the Campbell River Community Fisheries Committee. I think some of them are valid. But your second-last paragraph states:

There needs to be a comprehensive transitional strategy for west coast salmon fisheries management which identifies and manages for the key common ground issues of economics, habitat, enforcement and enhancement.

I submit to you that the same thing needs to happen on the east coast. In fact, one of the purposes of this committee in terms of fisheries and oceans is to come to some decisions relative to that. One of the difficulties we're having—and it always happens in politics—is that government sometimes defends what's happened and opposition parties oppose.

Do you have any suggestions on how to get from A to Z in terms of getting to that strategy for fisheries and fisheries management that will deal with the human element but also deal with the long-term conservation and sustainability of the stocks?

The Chairman: I wonder, gentlemen, if we could have a short answer, because we are then going to go to Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Ted Martin: I don't have a magic way of getting there.

One of the things you might try to do is make the decision-making process as close to the coast here as you possibly can so that you'll be drawing on expert people in our communities who are the stakeholders in the fishery. The closer you can bring the decision to the salmon, if you like, the better it's going to be, because there will be far more understanding of what the real problems are.

• 1725

The Chairman: We go now to the New Democratic Party, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief because I know we have limited time. I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before the committee, and I congratulate them on the success of their community-based initiative.

I might just say for the witnesses' information that I understand the fisheries committee has in fact agreed in principle to travel to British Columbia, and it sounds to me as if your area on Vancouver Island would be an excellent place—and I doubt whether we would get much resistance from Mr. Duncan on this—to have a first-hand look at exactly what is happening and some very positive experiences. I hope we will have that opportunity in January.

I have two brief questions, although the answers may not be that brief. They are fairly controversial issues. You touch on one of them. In fact, the first issue you address is the international salmon treaty and your hope that we can gain control over our fish stocks. Obviously that's a concern for all of us in British Columbia, right across the political spectrum. I don't know whether you have any particular suggestions for our government on this, suggestions you want to pass on through the committee, but certainly we would welcome them.

One of the concerns many of us have now is the talk of a two-track process, the suggestion that maybe we'll talk about money and compensation on the one hand and then put equity issues down the line; in other words, our fair allocation of the resource. I think that would be a very serious negotiating mistake. Any particular suggestions you have on that I would welcome.

My other question is that you referred in your evidence to DFO's manipulation of the industry and licence stacking. We've had some difference of opinion on this between Mr. Easter, as the parliamentary secretary, and the earlier witnesses who appeared on the impact of the Mifflin plan on their coastal communities. I wonder whether the witnesses from this area might be able give us some indication of just what the impact has been of, in your words, this manipulation of the Mifflin plan in terms of jobs and obviously the broader impact on your community as a whole in Campbell River and elsewhere.

Mr. Ted Martin: I would like to start with the first question. One of the problems with not having a treaty is that you may have aggressive fishing of our fish by Canadians because there is no treaty, and that can be very damaging to our stocks. That's what can happen, and I just want to point that out to you. It's not necessarily the Americans who are overfishing our stocks. We may end up overfishing our stocks because we're in this conflict situation, and we should be aware of that.

Mr. Rick Frey: I have first-hand knowledge of the salmon treaty, the Mifflin plan, and DFO manipulation. I have the dubious honour of being one of the participants in the Prince Rupert fiasco. That came about with a lot of frustration with the lack of response by DFO, the government, to implement a salmon treaty. I guess you can pull the Mifflin plan in there with the area licensing. I was forced to spend an extra $120,000 for another one licence or $240,000 for two licences to fish what I did the previous year.

We've seen the stocks dwindling. I was up on the Nass River, where the fish first come in. At the start of the season the fish were coming in. It looked good. It looked like a good season starting off. Then it was just as if the tap went off. No fish were left. Frustration started to boil over with us, because this is our last kick at the cat—our only kick at the cat, if you happen to have one licence.

That's what it was, frustration. We couldn't get through to DFO to have them air our concerns, so as you said, there was a small confrontation. Having the factories coming from Alaska, coming down to bring the Alaskan fish into our plants in Prince Rupert, was just like rubbing salt into the wound; like slapping us in the face. So we talked to a couple of packers.

• 1730

Then we had the incident when the American one came in and rammed one of our boats on their way out, heading back to Alaska. Then there was the whole ferry thing. That was just to bring attention to the problem we have, which we see as being pawns in the Mifflin plan here. One licence is what we have. We have to hope that DFO is true to their form and deliver what they promised us, and that, in the end, was that we would have a fishery up there that would show us some economic returns. Not so. We didn't get it, and I think there are over 200 boats facing bankruptcy because of it.

So, yes, I'm frustrated. I've been fishing since 1962. I happened to see, I think, your chairman. I hope it's George Baker. I met him back in the survival coalition days, way back when.

The Chairman: That's right.

Mr. Rick Frey: Is it George back there, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: That's it, it's me. That was about 10 governments ago.

Mr. Rick Frey: Yes, right. Glad to see you, George. I'm still around, George, and hope you'll be around for more years. But as you see, we have a lot of problems.

The Chairman: Yes, sir.

Mr. Rick Frey: I'm still here trying hard, somehow.

The Chairman: Good for you.

Did you want to add anything else, John?

Mr. John Duncan: I wanted to say how much we appreciated you guys making the drive and taking the trouble to come on. I think you shouldn't underestimate the influence you have in what you say to this committee, because we have people from all across the country here. I know when I'm listening to people speaking from the Atlantic area, I'm learning throughout the exercise. We take an awful lot for granted sometimes, and what you've had to say today is influential and good stuff. Thank you.

Mr. Rick Frey: Can I say one more thing, John?

The Chairman: Sure, go right ahead.

Mr. Rick Frey: Going back to what Ted here said about that local marine advisory council, I'd like to add one thing. I was the first person on the chamber of commerce fisheries task force. That's away back 10 governments ago, George.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Rick Frey: It was a long time ago. I would like to say in regard to these protected areas, John, that you should know very well what kind of predicament we'd be in if you had that area to the north of Port Hardy, from Pine Island to Scarlet Point, as a protected area. Where would you put the trawlers that you fought so dearly for this year? Where would they go under the Mifflin plan? I'll give you a question.

Mr. John Duncan: I have to concur.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, gentlemen. Thanks for your evidence. We'll be reporting to Parliament, and thank you for your input.

Mr. Don Fish: Mr. Chairman, may I make one closing comment?

The Chairman: Yes. Go ahead.

Mr. Don Fish: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hearing us. First of all, I would like to thank the committee. Secondly, I would like to thank Sophia Leung for her kind comments in the House in the past two weeks on behalf of our project. Thirdly, Svend, you and the committee are most welcome, and I hope John Duncan and ourselves can co-host you. You could come up in December or January at any time. Thank you very much.

Mr. Rick Frey: I would agree with that.

The Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you very much for your evidence, and we'll be in touch. Thanks again.

You want to deal with a point of order, Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter: A point of order, or a point of privilege probably, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I'd ask you to deal with this either at the Board of Internal Economy or some place.

I think the inability of committee members to be able to access written copy of witnesses' testimony within a short period of time is just unacceptable. I happen to be serving on two committees at the moment. I want to be able to read what witnesses said at the committee that I wasn't at. They're about two weeks behind.

• 1735

Now, I know part of that was the changes that were made, I'll admit, by our government last time around in terms of moving from printed copies of the committee Hansard to the system we currently have. I think we've tried it for three years; I think it is absolutely unacceptable.

When I came into a committee hearing as president of the National Farmers Union six or eight years ago, if there were witnesses the day before, I could get copies of the blues right away. This system is just unacceptable. As committees, we cannot make decisions without having that evidence available to us within 24 hours.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Chairman, would you please have that in the form of a motion from Mr. Easter, and then we'd vote on it.

The Chairman: The motion is that I bring this concern to the committee on committees, the Liaison Committee, which I sit on the executive of. That is the motion moved by Mr. Easter, seconded by Mr. Lunn.

(Motion agreed to)

Our next meeting is Thursday morning.

Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine— Pabok, BQ): I'd like to ask a brief question before we adjourn. I understand that the House leaders have not been able to discuss our request for travel funds. I would like to know what we have to do now and whether there is a way of getting around that problem. Should we table a new request in the House tomorrow to get the House leaders to consider our request? What is happening? I understand that if we do not table our request before the end of the week, it will be difficult to travel at the end of November because the House is recessing next week.

[English]

The Chairman: Your point is well taken. The only thing we can do this: I will consult with our House leader, and if you can consult with your House leaders—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: That's been done.

[English]

The Chairman: It's already done? Hopefully we can get this thing resolved before tomorrow is out. So I will be speaking to the government House leader right now, because we have to go for a vote. So that should be resolved by tomorrow.

Ms. Sophia Leung: What was the issue? I missed the translation.

The Chairman: The issue is that our permission to travel has to go through a final step, which is the agreement of the House leaders. There was a meeting today, apparently, and by some slip it didn't come up.

Mr. Stoffer, did you have anything?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: On one quick thing, as I was mentioning to Bill, I still haven't received that information from Kenneth Kerr from Human Resources in regard to the professional fish harvesters. Under questioning they had said this organization was the one that gave them, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the advice to cancel TAGS from five to four years.

Under questioning, I had asked for the names and numbers of that organization. They said they would get back to us. At our last meeting, I asked if I could receive that information. I would really like to have that before we have our Remembrance Day break, because it's vital.

The Chairman: Absolutely. I'll be in touch with Mr. Kerr, who is the director of the department, personally on that.

We are meeting Thursday morning with scientists at 8.45 a.m. in room 536, 180 Wellington Street, which I presume is the South Block. It's on the fifth floor of the Wellington Building.

Don't forget; it's 8.45 a.m. It's a very important subject. We'll have there everybody in charge of science.

This meeting is adjourned.