FISH Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 6, 1999

• 0904

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone. We will begin our meeting today.

Peter, I will take notice of that and bring it up right at the end of the meeting.

Today we're looking at the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31 in the next millennium. We'd like to welcome to our committee the minister and his staff. We are certainly glad to see him back on his feet and doing very well after the accident he had this winter.

• 0905

Mr. Minister, there will be others coming here shortly. I'm being encouraged by those here to start this meeting sharply at 9 a.m. It's only a few minutes after.

So with that, Mr. Minister, we welcome your intervention, after which I'm sure the opposition parties will have some questions to ask, as I'm sure people on our side of the House will as well.

So welcome to our meeting. It's a beautiful morning. Hopefully it's a great day in the water in Atlantic Canada and on the west coast, and hopefully the fishery will go well again this season.

Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to be before you again, this time to discuss the main estimates.

I think it's understood that I will be here for the first half of the morning. The second half I have a meeting of the economic committee of cabinet. But I will be happy to return if indeed there are questions that remain after you've had an opportunity to question me and the members of the department who are with me.

[Translation]

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Main Estimates for the fiscal year 1999-2000.

[English]

As you've probably noted in the report on plans and priorities, the department is spending a total of $1.4 billion in the fiscal year 1999-2000, which compares with $1.05 billion approved in the 1998-99 main estimates. The majority of this increase is related to the Canadian fisheries adjustment measures, which total $305 million. The remainder of the increase relates to such items as the Y2K issue and staffing of lighthouses, which was not anticipated and which we intend to continue to do.

In the report on the plans and priorities for 1999-2000, which is part III of the main estimates—it's available to you; it has been tabled in the House of Commons—you will note that DFO is committed to providing Canadians with: conservation and biological sustainability of fisheries resources; protection of marine and freshwater fish habitats; and safe, efficient, and accessible oceans, inland waterways, and harbours.

[Translation]

DFO is acting on many fronts to achieve these goals. Within Canada we are actively pursuing new lines of communication with stakeholders, industry, provincial governments, territories and First Nations, as well as with individual Canadians.

[English]

Before I go into some of the details of those initiatives of the department, I would like to say a few words about our international activities, which I believe will be of increasing importance. Canada has oceans on three sides, the longest coastline in the world, the second-largest area of continental shelf, and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone. I think Canadians fully understand that the country has a direct stake in the international effort to protect and preserve the marine environment.

The House of Commons and this committee are recognizing the importance of that international action by adopting Bill C-27, which is the legislation that enables us to ratify the United Nations Fisheries Agreement, UNFA, on conservation and management of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks. So I would start by thanking the members of the committee for the considerable work they did on this issue and for the assistance you provided in the passage of Bill C-27. This will be a key provision, but not the only one, to end overfishing, particularly on the outer limits of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, and will serve Canada well in the negotiation of the new western and central Pacific tuna convention. It's an important milestone for this country and adds to our credibility when we speak internationally on the issue of overfishing and when we try to promote sustainable Canadian practices in the international sphere.

• 0910

[Translation]

We have also made significant progress on domestic inter- governmental cooperation. Several weeks ago, on April 12 to be specific, federal, provincial and territorial fisheries ministers held a productive one-day meeting in Quebec City on, among other things, an interjurisdictional cooperation agreement and other important issues for fisheries ministers. We also had the pleasure of welcoming to the table a new delegation from Nunavut. We reached an agreement in principle that will permit jurisdictions to work better together in preserving the resource, and that will create a new forum for fisheries ministers to act collectively in pursuit of common objectives.

[English]

Federal, provincial, and territorial governments in Canada also cooperated in drafting a national program of action to help protect our oceans. The draft program proposes regional and national programs to protect human health and the environment through the prevention, reduction, and control of marine pollution as a result of land-based activities. This initiative is consistent with Canada's voluntary agreement to support the UN global program of action for the protection of the marine environment from land-based activities. The purpose in releasing a draft of the national program of action is to seek input and encourage debate among various Canadian organizations and individuals. I should add that this land-based pollution problem is of particular concern on the Arctic shore.

To reach our goals, DFO understands that we must do more than just talk to other levels of government. We must also—and this is perhaps the primordial task—talk to the people whose livelihood and security depend upon sustainable and safe use of the oceans and ocean resources. I think our activities over the past year demonstrate that we are committed to operating this way.

Take, for example, the new boating safety initiative undertaken by the Canadian Coast Guard, which is designed to reduce the 200 marine fatalities and 6,000 accidents that occur each year on the water. This regulatory initiative was the result of extensive consultation with Canadians who share in the interest of making our waters safer. Although 200 may not seem a large figure, in fact it's very similar to the number of people who were killed in the Swissair 111 disaster. The fact is, it's generally spread out over the summer and occurs with a few people at a time and thus is not noticed in the same way, but it's a substantial number of people.

Cooperation between the public sector and the private sector in oil spill preparedness and response are further illustrations of the commitment to listen and act on the advice of stakeholders. We are also working, and have worked, with industry to modernize the Canadian marine aides to navigation system and to develop and implement new technologies, such as the global marine distress safety system and the differential global positioning system, which improve safety in marine transportation and reduce risks to the marine environment in Canada and around the world.

Members of the committee, the development of a marine protected area program under the Oceans Act is another example of where we are moving forward proactively while at the same time consulting. MPAs will form a key part of integrated ocean management in Canada. They are designed to address the needs of a particular ecosystem while meeting the objectives of resource users and broader community interests. I have named five pilot MPAs in the last year, with others to follow. These will be complemented by further important initiatives such as the development of an ocean management strategy for Canada.

[Translation]

DFO is renewing its approach to fish management and improving cooperation with stakeholders. This includes extensive and ongoing consultations since 1995 to draft the Canadian Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing Operations. This Code is an all-important aspect of our commitment to work with industry as we move towards sustainable, conservation-based fisheries in Canada. It also represents Canada's adoption of the principles of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The Code has been sent to fishing organizations across the country for ratification by their memberships.

• 0915

DFO is also pursuing co-management arrangements as an important building block towards a conservation-based fishery of the future.

[English]

To achieve the goals I've outlined, we recognize that some processes have to be made more efficient for DFO and more convenient for fishermen. For example, in that regard we have a pilot project in the Laurentian region to improve our management of the commercial fishing registration and licensing system. The result of cooperation between DFO and the National Bank of Canada, this system enables fishermen to either mail payment of licence and vessel registration to DFO or to pay directly at a participating Canadian financial institution. This system will be introduced in Newfoundland for this year, and plans are underway to introduce this service in the Pacific and elsewhere.

Ladies and gentlemen, the past several years have seen enormous changes in Canada's commercial fishery. Fishermen clearly, however, want a transparent, self-reliant, self-regulating, economically viable, and environmentally sustainable industry. And those obviously are the goals of our department as we move towards the fishery of the future, a fishery in which a core of professional fishermen working together with government is able to weather the periodic downturns and adjust expectations according to the availability of the resource.

[Translation]

We have recognized that this means a smaller fishery, which in turn calls for licence policy reform, licence retirement and early retirement programs, and measures to help communities diversify their economies. These measures are necessary to support a humane adjustment to a fishery in which harvesting capacity is brought into line with what the resource can sustain.

In 1998, the federal government announced almost $450 million in new funds to support continued restructuring of the fishery on both coasts, through voluntary licence retirement programming. On the East coast, since 1992, voluntary licence retirement and policy changes had already reduced the number of groundfish licences by over 30 per cent. An additional 1,200 licences have now been retired under new programming which is not yet complete. In British Columbia, the salmon licence retirement program recently retired 746 salmon licences, bringing the total reduction since 1996 to 38% of the fleet. I expect this progress to continue as we work towards our goal, announced in 1996, of a 50% reduction in the BC salmon fleet.

[English]

Last December, Mr. Chairman, I announced the appointment of Yves Bastien to the newly created position of commissioner for aquaculture development. The creation of this position recognizes the growing importance of the aquaculture sector in Canada's economy and its potential to provide additional sustainable economic activity in rural and coastal areas. Mr. Bastien's new role in this regard includes the mandate to lead regulatory reforms and to work with the federal and provincial governments and the industry as to develop a vibrant, environmentally sensitive, and profitable aquaculture industry in Canada.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm now working with my department to provide direction and give substance to a vision for the fishery of the future. On the east coast, the main objective is to create a more consistent and cohesive framework for the future of the Atlantic fisheries. DFO is moving forward in that respect. For example, we formed an internal working group to review the Atlantic fisheries policy. Members of the working group will be looking to fishermen and their representatives for their ideas. I should add that this is not a revolutionary change, but the policies that govern fishing have grown over 500 years of history and it is important to make sure there's some coherence and consistency in the policies we apply. That is the purpose of that review.

• 0920

On the Pacific coast, the recently announced allocation framework for Pacific salmon, 1999-2005, a six-year period, is another good example of the shift in priorities towards a more open and transparent, conservation-based policy and decision-making. The framework includes a proposal for an independent board to advise and make recommendations to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who will continue to make the decision with regard to allocations. Once conservation is assured, the framework outlines a reasonable and balanced approach to allocations of the resource.

So these policy reviews, both on the east and west coasts, are intended to enhance consultation and improve fisheries management under a co-management approach. This is consistent with the report of the independent panel studying partnering, which I put in place last fall and which tabled its report in December. The panel advised that it is premature at this time to establish a legal framework for partnering under a revised Fisheries Act. At the same time, however, the panel urged the federal government to continue with co-management initiatives.

I've accepted Dr. Savoie's report and the recommendation of the panel, and therefore I'm announcing to you that I do not intend to introduce full-scale revisions of the Fisheries Act at this time. Rather, I'll be focusing on the development of a policy framework to support the development of an economically viable fishery of the future. Generally speaking, this decision was well received by my provincial counterparts during discussions at the fisheries ministers' meeting in Quebec City.

[Translation]

In closing, I want to point out that the federal government and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have asked Canadians to participate in assessing and changing the way we relate to our oceans and inland waters. We recognize that we must also do a better job of integrating our activities with other governments, industry groups, First Nations, coastal communities, and others with an interest in our oceans.

[English]

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to give us an outline in my preliminary remarks.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la- Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.

While I don't wish to take up any of the Reform members' time, I would like the Minister to clarify something for me. It's my understanding he has to leave early to attend a Cabinet meeting. Could he confirm whether this is in fact the case, and tell us when he has to leave so that we can decide together how we wish to proceed in order to give the opposition time to ask questions. We arrived before 9 a.m. so that we could hear his presentation and ask him some questions.

Mr. David Anderson: I'm scheduled to attend a Cabinet committee on the economy at 12:30 p.m., but I'm quite willing to return whenever it's mutually convenient.

[English]

The Chairman: It's at 12.30 p.m.?

[Translation]

Mr. David Anderson: It's at 10:30 a.m.

[English]

The Chairman: So there should not be a problem.

I would go with the normal thing. I will penalize the team to my right by eight minutes for coming later.

Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.): I object.

The Chairman: I will begin then with the Reform Party for their 10 minutes. Who is going to go first?

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr. Anderson, I appreciate your coming this morning.

On the Nisga'a Treaty, cabinet has authorized you to sign the harvest agreement for the purpose of implementing the fisheries provisions of the treaty. Has that been signed?

Mr. David Anderson: With the Nisga'a?

Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

Mr. David Anderson: No.

Mr. John Cummins: The harvest implementation section?

• 0925

Mr. David Anderson: The process for the Nisga'a as envisioned in the treaty is as follows. The Nisga'a will come up with a plan for fisheries management for the year in their area of the Nass Valley, and the plan will have to be approved by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In turn, they will administer the plan in the area in question. If there is a situation...which I certainly do not envisage, but where there might be a plan being ignored or not enforced, or somehow or other the understanding that was there when the Minister of Fisheries signed off on the plan at the beginning of the year isn't adhered to, there would be provision for the Minister of Fisheries to return in his supervisory role. So the final authority will rest with the Minister of Fisheries.

Mr. John Cummins: I'm not clear. Has the implementation agreement been signed?

Mr. David Anderson: The agreement I've described is in the legislation, and that will be debated in the House presumably this fall.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes, but has the implementation agreement been signed?

Mr. David Anderson: No, it cannot be signed, because the legislation is required before I'm able to—

Mr. John Cummins: The order in council had two parts, part A and part B. I believe part A was the part the minister signed the other day, and she signed the Nisga'a final agreement. Part B was for the purpose of implementing the agreement and yours was for the implementation of the harvest agreement. I'm asking, was that part signed?

Mr. David Anderson: In terms of the signatures of the treaty itself, the treaty does not come into effect until legislation is ratified by the House of Commons and Senate in the appropriate way. So there is no question of me at this time signing the agreement that's in the legislation. It's not possible for me to do that.

Mr. John Cummins: So you're saying you haven't signed the implementation agreement?

Mr. David Anderson: No, we haven't. We can't do that until the legislation is passed.

Mr. John Cummins: When you were just talking now about the treaty, were you talking in the present tense? You seemed to be. You were saying arrangements were being made or that the Nisga'a were developing a plan for managing the fishery. Is this a plan that's going to be put in place for this season?

Mr. David Anderson: No. What I'm describing, Mr. Cummins, is simply what is in the legislation as best I understand it—

Mr. John Cummins: I understand that, but then you weren't describing something that's going to be put in place this summer.

Mr. David Anderson: No, what I'm describing is the legislation of the Nisga'a Treaty.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes, I understand that.

Mr. David Anderson: Outside of that they're not implementing that—

Mr. John Cummins: But your intention isn't to implement it this summer.

Mr. David Anderson: No, we're not implementing that separately. The only way I could do it legally would be once the legislation is passed.

Mr. John Cummins: I wanted to clarify that.

You mentioned international agreements, and I wanted to question you on that because it is, I'm sure, a considerable expenditure for the department, and in particular the Pacific salmon agreement. You have been quoted in the papers as saying Canada must adopt a more realistic approach to get a deal instead of begging for every fish. You accused the Canadian stakeholders of holding up the treaty because of their refusal to compromise and so on.

In fact, you're quoted in the Congressional Record, a document read by most American congressmen, as saying that:

Canadian Fisheries Minister David Anderson was quoted as saying that Canadians have been too rigid in negotiations with the United States over salmon.

Your comments seem to fly in the face of Mr. Strangway and Mr. Ruckelshaus, who said that Canada was not getting its fair share of salmon. Mr. Fortier said that Beesley and Strangway and Ruckelshaus all agreed that the U.S. must reduce its interception of Canadian fish, and he suggested that Canada had not vigorously pressed this advantage home.

I'm a little bit mystified by your comments that we're being too hard-nosed.

Mr. David Anderson: Let me explain it to you. You're talking about two quite separate things, Mr. Cummins. On the one hand, you're talking about negotiations and the tactics of negotiations, where we've had six years of sticking exactly to the script that every fish must return to Canada, and we failed every time, and every year our position has eroded vis-à-vis the Americans and weakened year after year. That is a negotiating issue of too much rigidity, which you've raised, which I think is particularly important.

• 0930

I would point out that the quote you alleged to me, of begging for fish, is totally inaccurate. Nevertheless, that is the situation we have here. A too-rigid approach has failed six years in a row. Strangway and Ruckelshaus recommended a flexible approach and said Canada would have to depart from that too rigid approach. Then they went on to say—in the same sentence, Mr. Cummins—that fish should move to Canada. Now, if you're negotiating and you've had Strangway and Ruckelshaus tell you to stop being so rigid and move to fish to Canada, you're a damn fool if you don't get away from those rigid positions that have led you in the past to get no fish to Canada.

Mr. John Cummins: Your commissioner, a man that you appointed to the Pacific Salmon Commission, said that there don't seem to be more fish coming toward Canada from Alaska. He said what he'd seen to date is that there has been no change on the Alaskans' part. Of course, that's a critical problem. Are you prepared to sacrifice fish in the northern portion of British Columbia to gain in the south?

Mr. David Anderson: First of all, Mr. Cummins, I have said time after time that there will be no arrangement if we do not have fish moved to Canada. That's a fundamental that I have stated time after time after time. And you no doubt have read those quotes. It is important to recognize that if we're to get a deal satisfactory to Canada, which we can sign, we will have to have the second part of the Strangway-Ruckelshaus sentence that I mentioned to you a moment ago implemented, which is movement of fish to Canada.

Now, where those fish might come from, in what quantities, what their proportions would be at certain times of year, what allowances would be made for conservation as opposed to fishing opportunity are things that are the subject of negotiation. But I can assure you that in terms of objective, it has been absolutely clear, abundantly clear and impossible to misunderstand, that fish must move to Canada.

Mr. John Cummins: Okay. Are you going to abide, then, by the terms of the treaty in your negotiations? By that I mean the equity and conservation principles, and I'm thinking in particular of the equity. That's first and foremost in your mind, is it?

Mr. David Anderson: The equity principle, as interpreted by Canada in the past, and as pointed out by Strangway and Ruckelshaus, was leading to consistent deadlock year after year. Each time we had a year of deadlock, Canada lost ground. We are not in the position we were in six years ago. It is easy to say, I'm going to stick for everything for my constituents, and then lose and blame somebody else for the loss. At some stage you have to recognize that this is not serving your constituents effectively. You have to say we're better off to occasionally win something, rather than simply be right and constantly lose. The equity principle is enormously important. We wish to preserve it. But I think we also have to recognize that Strangway and Ruckelshaus said if the equity principle means fish for fish—for every fish that spawns in a Canadian river, the Americans must make compensation of another fish born in an American river—it has not worked at all in the past. It's not the way it's interpreted by our other side. If we stick doggedly to a principle that we know will fail, we might as well not have those expensive negotiations at all.

We certainly must tell our constituents that in protecting a principle, and being unwilling to have any flexibility, you, the fishermen of British Columbia, are going to lose, lose big time, and lose more and more and more every single year.

Mr. John Cummins: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]...than we've lost?

The Chairman: Thanks, Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Cummins, your 10 minutes are up.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Minister, all I have this morning is five minutes and the chair is a stickler for the time. I'll begin by commenting on a particular situation in my riding and then I'll ask you some serious questions about your vision of a sustainable fishery.

I want to draw your attention to the need for an ice-breaker to protect the wharf and the infrastructure that DFO invested in at Ile-d'Entrée in the Magdalen Islands. I sent you a letter about this in April and I was wondering if your officials had had an opportunity to go there. If you can't answer my question this morning, I'll await a written answer. When you live on an island and the only line of communication is a wharf, it's regrettable that this infrastructure isn't better protected.

• 0935

The last written response you provided did not list DFO's priorities and we would like to know what they are. Do you feel that protecting the only line of communication should be a priority? That concludes my preamble. I just wanted to say that I wish we could learn to work together in order to achieve some concrete results.

Speaking of concrete results that I would like to achieve this year, you left me an opening in your presentation when you stated that your department wanted to develop a sustainable fishery. Could you tell us exactly how it plans to go about this? When will you be prepared to disclose the details of the groundfish strategy that will be adopted this year for the Gulf of St. Lawrence? It was my understanding that you intended to unveil your plan one month before the opening of the fishery. Officials may well decide not to open the fishery until September. Should I advise my fishers at this time that the announcement won't be made until August, like last year? I'd like to know when these plans will be announced, hopefully at least one month before the regular opening of the fishery.

Secondly, as part of your objective to develop a sustainable fishery, I'd like to know which fishing vessels will be given special consideration. At some point, we're going to have call things as they are. Since no one expects there to be a lot of fish for everyone, certain boats will have to be singled out. How do you plan to go about doing this?

I'd like to know when the fishery will open, which boats will be permitted to fish, who will be fishing and who is going to make these decisions. Building a sustainable fishery requires the cooperation of the provinces. You have taken a step in this direction with your fishing organizations, but the time has come to roll up our sleeves, take the bull by the horns, set a time table along with a number of goals and evaluate things that can truly be quantified, otherwise, Mr. Minister, we're going to drift about aimlessly. That's what I'm asking you to do this morning. Do you have any kind of plan in the works?

If there's time remaining later, I will make a few more comments and ask more questions about specific issues. The matter of a sustainable fishery is important to me. The United Nations Fish Agreement makes mention of a sustainable fishery, but the Canadian documentation does not set out any kind of timetable for achieving this objective

Mr. David Anderson: Thank you for that information concerning the wharfs. It's a very important issue. Our budget for wharfs is $46 million this year, 9% of which will be spent in Quebec. This amount is slightly higher than the value of landings in Quebec.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: It's not my fault if our coastline is spread out more than the others.

Mr. David Anderson: It's not a question of its being anyone's fault. The problem rather is one of funding, as far as these extended coastlines are concerned, the many ports not only in Quebec, but in Prince Edward Island as well. When I glance at the people seated at this table, I see members acknowledging that they are having similar problems. Indeed, this problem is not restricted to Quebec. We have $46 million in total to work with and 95 separate sites in the province of Quebec.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Since I only have two minutes left, could you answer my question about developing a sustainable fishery?

Mr. David Anderson: I wanted to discuss the Magdalen Islands first. I will look into the problem you mentioned, but you have to realize that we are faced with some difficult choices when the time comes to invest in wharfs. We need to get the best bang for our buck and at the same time, protect our fishers and our resources.

As for your second question, we have about 140 different fisheries. I could give you some details about certain ones in particular, although each has its own unique problems. For example, we had to reschedule the opening of the fishery in PEI last week. We could provide you with more detailed information about each individual fishery, but this would take a lot longer than two minutes.

• 0940

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Now, normally it's ten minutes on the right, but I'll only give them five; they'll take their five-minute penalty.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): We've clearly got the Bobbsey twins at work here this morning, haven't we?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Minister.

I have a couple of points. I noticed the Auditor General made some reference to quite a few issues relative to the fishery. There are two points of concern I'd like to express. One is that I'd like to thank you and your department for deviating from the inshore quota, vis-à-vis the coast of Labrador and areas like that, to give some flexibility in the last year to catch those shrimp that were otherwise uncaught. I noticed there was a note there. I still believe what the department did was correct, to serve the most fishermen possible and to allow them to get some money to gear up for future years in the shrimp fishery. So I think the Auditor General could have gone a little further and checked this out, and I concur with the department's action.

The other point I want to make on shrimp, Minister, has to do with comments I raised in this committee last year having to do with high-grading. I'm still concerned about that, and I know you are. I think we have to do everything in our power to safeguard the high-grading problem. With so many boats and such a high tonnage in terms of previous years, I believe, and I've said before, that high-grading could be as much as double what the allowable capacity is. I noticed the Auditor General made some mention of that.

The third point is I noticed in the Globe and Mail this morning a report on the seals and the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, and I think that's a move in the right direction. I wouldn't mind getting your comments, Minister, on that, because as you know, the committee addressed this a couple of weeks ago and there was some very good discussion, I believe, with all sectors of the industry. I think if we move on this particular issue, we would be doing something that's correct.

The final point is similar to what Mr. Bernier talked about in terms of Small Crafts and Harbours. I am very concerned about this issue—$46 million. I think we have $10 billion worth of assets in this country, in DFO.

There are two points on this that I'm concerned about. One is the maintenance of the existing structure and the second is the cap of $0.5 million on any new developments. Just to give you an example, we have in my home town, in my riding, a fishermen's facility owned by Small Crafts and Harbours, under the harbour authorities and so on. In order to maintain that facility.... It's starting to rock with the seas now because it needs hammerstone. But the dollar cap is $700,000. It was listed as a priority project this year in terms of recommendations. Now we can't do it because the funds are capped at $700,000. That's a facility into which millions of dollars have gone from Small Crafts and Harbours, and I'm really worried that it's going to fall down in the next couple of years.

So I think we have to use some logic here and play it out in terms of the need versus the policy and try to put a common-sense approach to this. I ask you, Minister, to consider that, review it, and look at it in light of projects that need to be sustained. That's an example.

So I thank you, Minister, for listening to me. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would appreciate some of your comments.

The Chairman: I'm sorry, there's no time for comments.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Oh, too bad.

The Chairman: We'll go back to Reform now.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I'd suggest we give the minister a few minutes to respond.

The Chairman: Will you give him your five?

Mr. Gary Lunn: No, but I think you should give the minister a few minutes to respond.

The Chairman: No, we're not going to do that, unless you want to give up your time.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I'll carry on.

The Chairman: Mr. Lunn, this is your five minutes.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you for coming, Mr. Minister. I'm going to cut right to the chase here. I'm going to focus my comments with respect to science.

On page 1 of the estimates—and I'm going to quote you—you say a shift to conservation-based fisheries and a more precautionary ecosystem-based approach is where we need to be going, and how this requires continually expanding our scientific research and expertise. Further down you talk about making progress and understanding how a marine ecosystem is a priority over the next several years. It's clear you're suggesting that science is a priority with the department, and I agree with that.

• 0945

You were attributed last week in an article by Glen Whiffen in The Telegram as saying you would not be opposed to culling seals if there was scientific information to show there would be a positive impact from doing so. However, you went on to state that you don't believe there is enough scientific information at this time.

You'll get to where I'm going in just a minute. You were also quoted as saying:

I do not fault the scientists although, as a non-scientist myself, I have to admit I think it's taking quite a bit of time to get this information.

I find it absolute amazing, as we go into the next century, that we still don't know what the seals eat.

I could go on. I have a lot of notes here. But it's all talking about the science. Basically, whenever there's a collapse within the management of the fishery, whenever there seems to be a decision that's breaking down, you or your department always seem to come back to this: we don't have enough scientific information, the science is not there, we need the science before we can make a decision, and we can't make a decision until we get all the data in.

However, when I come over to the estimates, I notice it's the largest cut of the entire department. In fact, over the next three years we're going to be cutting $52.1 million from scientific research. I've been getting calls from people in the Pat Bay research facility, which is located in my own backyard, and they are equally concerned about the massive cutbacks to science. I would like you to try to talk about this and how we're getting these massive cuts of 17% over the next three years. It's the largest cut I can get out of the estimates.

There's one other point, staying on this science note. There's a front-page article by Erin Anderssen in today's Globe and Mail, I think it is. The Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, as you know, is composed of scientists, fishery, and industry representatives. They're stating that fishermen need a year-round licence to kill seals. The article is saying that the scientific data is out there, and there's no question that the cod stocks cannot recover unless you do something about the seal herds. They go on to state that fishermen should be able to actually have a licence to completely cull seals in certain areas. I want to know if you support this. I'm sure you've read this article, and I want to know if you back this up. I think there is an opportunity here to do something about it.

[They ] the fisheries council “believes beyond any reasonable doubt that the conservation of the groundfish stocks, most notably cod, will continue to be jeopardized if the seal herds remain at their current levels”.

Again, this is coming from the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council scientists themselves. So if you can distinguish—

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lunn.

We'll move now to Nancy for her five minutes.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): I don't want just to hear my voice. I'm going to ask one very short question. On northern shrimp, when can we expect to hear anything about the exploratory proposed quota and whether the principle of adjacency will be considered in this allocation?

Mr. David Anderson: Thank you, Nancy. With regard to the northern zone—I think the numbering is 0B—adjacent to Nunavut, we're in discussion with the Nunavut wildlife people, and I expect that as soon as those discussions are completed, we will have the decision on an exploratory fishery. The potential would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3,500 tonnes. I think with the April 1 festivities and other things, perhaps Nunavut is not on top of this as much as they'd like to be. I think it should be very soon that we'll have that discussion.

The adjacency principle applies. This is not considered to be a permanent fishery at this point, but it's in the adjacency principle, and temporary licences would apply.

The Chairman: Nancy, do you have any further questions?

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: No.

The Chairman: The penalty is up now, and we'll go back to your side, Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): She has three minutes left.

The Chairman: They had an eight-minute penalty and they only took five.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay, very good. Thank you.

An hon. member: Stop being a nice guy.

• 0950

Mr. Peter Stoffer: First of all, I want to thank the minister for appearing again. I'd also like to thank the department for working with Keith Colwell, the Minister of Fisheries for Nova Scotia, to develop a lobster penalty plan for those businesses that purchase illegal lobsters so that they can be punished as severely as possible. That was a move in the right direction.

But my first question is, how can the department justify a 17% cut to science?

Mr. David Anderson: I'll turn that over to John Davis in a moment. This brings up what Mr. Lunn was saying. Science is critical, but we are facing enormous cuts. The reason we have such difficulty is that marine and oceanographic science is enormously expensive. It's much cheaper to do space science than it is to do ocean science.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay, I appreciate that comment. The reason I'm cutting you off is because I have other questions as well.

Mr. David Anderson: Okay. I'll turn it over to Mr. Davis and he can reply. Indeed, even afterwards, he can stay here and reply.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Last year Mr. O'Brien mentioned that there were massive amounts of high-grading going on, on the seas. We all received that letter from the company saying Mr. O'Brien was wrong and that if he was out of committee, he'd be sued. My question to you is, is there high-grading of shrimp going on, yes or no?

Mr. David Anderson: There is to some degree.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

Mr. David Anderson: You can't have a yes or no. If you say yes, that would be one single animal over the side out of tens of millions or even billions of animals.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Very good.

The Auditor General indicated on page 4-11 that there's a two-track approach to resource allocation. I have said time and time again that there is an incestuous relationship between DFO and those major players in the corporate fishing going on in Atlantic Canada. He says right here that the second-track process is that industry groups and others address their concerns directly to the minister for resource allocation on how the fishery should be managed.

A classic example of that is that just recently the department allowed Clearwater and Donna Rae Ltd. to lay 2,000 traps 50 miles off the eastern shore. Based on conservation and on the fact that you need the best scientific and biological evidence, which you do not have, how can you justify an exploratory fishery of 2,000 traps 50 miles off my riding on the eastern shore?

Mr. David Anderson: It is exploratory. We don't know what's out there. That's the first point to make. If you want to find out what's out there, you do set out an extensive system—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Why 2,000 traps?

Mr. David Anderson: The more extensive the system, the more information you're going to get. You can't on the one hand say to the DFO that you don't have the information and then when you try to get it have others say you're at fault. You have to make up your mind, Peter, as to what you wish.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Does there have to be 2,000 of them?

Mr. David Anderson: The more extensive your exploratory work, the more information you're going to obtain. This is exploratory work. By the way, it has been delayed until next year. But you have to be consistent on this. If you want to have the information, you have to expect the work to be done. If you don't like the work being done, don't complain that we don't have the information.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay, great. The next issue is that there is information coming down that the department may allow the capture of some beluga whales for Marineland park in Niagara Falls. I can only encourage you not to allow that to happen. Has the department made a decision, and what are your concerns on the beluga whale capture?

Mr. David Anderson: We had a report done by Dr. Lien. He studied this and recommended that we not proceed with commercial capture but continue to allow scientific experimental capture. The department has not made a decision on his report, but I would expect a decision in very short order. There are issues with regard to legal implications and cost. Things like that have to be looked at before we can come down on one side or the other.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: When do you think that decision may be made?

Mr. David Anderson: We think within a month.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: This is my last very quick question, and I'm trying to plug in on Yvan Bernier's wharf question. Baker's Point in Jeddore has asked for dredging of their harbour because of the downloading of it. I've seen the letters that were sent to your department. Are you able to assist them in getting that harbour dredged for the long term for their boats to come in and out of that harbour?

Mr. David Anderson: I don't know the details of that specific one, but I'll just go back to a general point. We have only $46 million for an extraordinary number of facilities. We have the Canso Canal, and an issue of dredging also comes up there. It's a very difficult business. On a particular issue we simply will look at it. But we're trying hard to get out of dredging, generally speaking, and we're trying hard instead to spend the money on the protection of the wharfs, docks, and breakwaters of working fishing ports.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I have more, but I'm sure my time is up.

The Chairman: I'll come back to you.

Paul.

• 0955

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Minister, most of the discussion usually centres on coastal fisheries on the east and west coasts. I bring a central Canada freshwater fishery perspective to this committee. I think there is unanimous support around this table that the decision to put $6 million back into the sea lamprey program this year was certainly the right decision. Obviously, as you well know and understand, the recommendation was $8 million and we anticipate that in the future sometime we will have $8 million.

I think we're in agreement around the table that this is the direction we need to go. The importance of the freshwater fishery can't be minimized.

I'm wondering, and my question to you this morning would be, where are we at in terms of finalizing an agreement of habitat management in Ontario? I realize that's been an ongoing problem for you, as it has been for those of us in Ontario. I'm just wondering whether we're coming to some conclusion on that.

Mr. David Anderson: Well, Paul, thank you for stressing the importance of the freshwater fishery, which you do frequently and effectively, and it's a very necessary issue to underline.

It's very important to the small communities, particularly the native communities in the northern part of Ontario, and other provinces of the prairies.

I would have to say with respect to where we are in Ontario, I guess yesterday's decision put everything on hold until after the election, and we'll simply have to wait until June 3, come back to whichever government it happens to be at that time, and press this vigorously.

I could perhaps extend that somewhat to say had we not had an election called yesterday and we were dealing obviously with the Harris government...I'd have to admit the negotiations have not gone particularly well, and they do not appear enthusiastic about delegation, which would be, in our view, a more effective way of delivering the service of both the Ontario ministries responsible for environment and habitat and ourselves.

That is our view; they differ. I would have to say it has not gone well up to now.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Okay. I'll defer my time for the minister to respond to Mr. O'Brien's questions.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Thank you very much. We appreciate that.

The Chairman: He has what, two minutes?

We've covered two or three of those points, Lawrence. We had other people dealing with this $46 million. The seals have also been touched upon. What particular one do you want in that two minutes?

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: I'd still like to ask the minister and his staff if he would deal with the flexibility of the $500,000, because that's an important point to me.

The Chairman: Okay, well, let's hear an answer on that one.

Mr. David Anderson: Thank you. I thought I'd focus on the first words, which were complementary. It's so rare, Lawrence, that I get these nice words from you. I'm quite stunned, but it was very kind of you. Thank you, and I appreciate the support you've given.

With respect to the harbours, the best thing for me to do is to go into this specifically on that one, get the full detailed information on that one, because I don't have it with me. My staff could dredge up something for you, if I can use a Harbours term, but I think it would be better if we just dealt with it directly one on one.

On the issue of hydrating, all I'll say is we have looked at this as closely as we can, but indeed in a comment in response to a question of Peter's in the House last week, almost a week ago, I pointed out the difficulty of having full compliance when you don't have an observer or policeman on every boat. It's inevitable there will be some slippage, and the big thing we're going to have to develop is the self-policing within the industry.

The fishermen themselves have to figure out how to protect the resource from others who are acting irresponsibly. It can't all be done by an enforcement agency, any more than all protection of our society can be done by the police, and there's a responsibility on citizens as well.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Now, Bill.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): I'd like to welcome the minister and his officials here.

I have just a couple of things. I don't believe you've set the total allowable catch quota in 3Ps yet. I think you set an interim quota of some amount. When will that be announced and set? Could you answer that for me?

Mr. David Anderson: Yes, Bill, the FRCC report will be out today. In fact I think it's out now, and they are recommending an increase for that area. We will be looking at their recommendation very carefully. Obviously, if there's a possibility of an increase and it can be safely done, that would be a great matter of relief to you and to me, but I can't guarantee that will happen. We have to look at the figures on which they've based their decision, and we'll be doing that just as soon as we can.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Thank you.

I want to tie into Mr. O'Brien's and Mr. Bernier's comments on Small Craft Harbours fisheries infrastructure.

• 1000

I have to say of all the issues I get contacted on, fisheries infrastructure takes as much if not more time than any other. It's because the fisheries infrastructure in a lot of cases needs refurbishing; it's been there for a long time. You keep referring to the $46 million. Is that a Small Craft Harbours budget, or where does that come from? I understand your department has a $115 million capital budget as well. Or is that $46 million in that? Can you clarify that for me?

Mr. David Anderson: Yes. I'll ask Carol Beal to clarify that.

Ms. Carol Beal (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Yes. Our capital allocation is approximately, as you said, $115 million. We have $46 million for Small Craft Harbours, of which only $4 million goes into administrative. The rest goes into either operations or into actual construction work in the harbour facilities themselves.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Well, I know you've got a money problem and all that stuff. But again, if my figures are correct, you've got assets of about $10 billion—DFO total assets of about $10 billion?

Ms. Carol Beal: DFO's asset base, which includes the fleet and includes the infrastructure and includes the facilities and our equipment, is approximately $9 billion.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Right. Well, I guess it ties into Mr. O'Brien's comments. If a project exceeds $500,000, then they can't deal with it at the regional level. I think that's basically what Mr. O'Brien is saying. That poses problems for all of us.

I've got a situation in the town of Grand Bank where we have a wharf that's about to collapse. If it collapses, it's going to block the entrance to the harbour where we...it's sort of difficult to deal with. That's going to cost around $1.5 million. So it creates all kinds of problems when you've got the $500,000 restriction on it. It ties into Mr. O'Brien's comment. For me it's a major problem. If something happens to that wharf and the vessel can't get in and out of the harbour, then the plant shuts down and throws 300 people out of work.

So it's a major concern, and you may find it surprising that I'm talking about fisheries infrastructure this morning, with all the other problems we have. But to be honest with you, it's one of the things that takes most of my time. I still have fishermen fishing off of what I call antique facilities, who have great difficulty getting off the beach to fish and getting back in.

It seems that the department—perhaps I'm wrong, but my interpretation is you're putting less and less emphasis and priority on infrastructure. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my sense of it, and it's making things very difficult, particularly for fishermen who need the infrastructure to fish and to get out and get back safely. I'd like your reaction to that.

Mr. David Anderson: Bill, I think the point you made, which was made also by Mr. O'Brien and Yvan Bernier and others, is a tremendously important one. The fact is yes, in a period of substantial financial restraint, we have had to pick priorities and we have not been carrying out the maintenance at the previous level of our capital assets. This is true clearly with the ports, and it is a major concern.

You can always do this for a period of time, you can reduce your expenditure on maintenance, but at some stage or another—this committee, I presume, will be addressing that problem very directly and whatever support you can give me on this would be most welcome, because you can't keep doing it and expect to maintain your asset base.

The Chairman: Bill, you quoted two figures there, and I'm not sure you got the answer on the other one. You got the answer to the $46 million, but you had another...?

Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes, they confirmed that $10 billion in assets.

The Chairman: Yes, but the other question on capital. Did you get an answer on that?

Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes, Ms. Beal answered that. She verified that.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Bill Matthews: So just a final question, Mr. Chairman. In a situation like the one we have with the Grand Bank wharf and the breakwater stuff, which say is going to cost $1.5 million, are we saying there's no solution for that problem? My worst fear is that the wharf is going to collapse, because as they say, whatever can go wrong will go wrong. That wharf will collapse and put 300 people out of work until something is done to correct the problem. So how do we deal with a situation like that with the $500,000 cap on that?

Mr. David Anderson: Well, obviously, Bill, we do not want to have a capital facility collapse and thus lose employment. But I'll let Carol give further details. All I'll suggest to you, though, is this is a very difficult problem, because everybody around this table has the same problem in their own riding.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I understand.

Mr. David Anderson: The budget is not adequate to maintain at the levels we used to. I'll let Carol comment on how decisions are made.

The Chairman: I'm sorry. Maybe after the minister leaves we can come back to that.

• 1005

Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Minister, I think you indicated on this whole issue of Small Craft Harbours that we're not spending at the level that government used to do, but I think it goes back much farther than that.

The asset base is about $9 billion or $10 billion. This is something we've looked at fairly extensively in many ridings, but coming from a farm experience, in any given year you basically should be spending 10% to maintain a capital asset facility. For whatever reason, that hasn't happened in DFO for 25 years. This is not the fault of the minister, and maybe not even the fault of the government in terms of the deficit we've had to deal with, but I do think as a committee at some point in time we have to express to the government as a whole that something has to be done to address this shortage in maintaining the infrastructure base of the industry.

Yes, there are probably some things that can be done. One doesn't like to say it, but maybe you can't have a port every five miles, as happens in some cases. That needs to be looked at as well, but the whole issue has to be addressed. That's the point I want to make.

On the shrimp upgrading, the Auditor General mentioned it as well, but under questioning he had no evidence either, other than hearsay in terms of talking to some people, that there was in fact shrimp high-grading. What is being done differently in the next year to try to control that issue? That is a very important issue.

My last question relates to temporary allocations of shrimp. In St. Anthony, I think, there has been a new facility built at multimillion dollar cost by Clearwater. In terms of the temporary allocations, how clear is it made to both fishers and companies that these are temporary allocations? If the time ever comes that you have to withdraw those temporary allocations, there has to be clear evidence that they are in fact temporary, so that we don't run into a situation like I've run into with some lobster fishermen who had the 90 traps and now we're saying, well, it should be permanent.

So there are two points. What is new that has been done on shrimp, and secondly, how clear have these temporary allocations been made to fishermen and companies?

Mr. David Anderson: I'll have David Bevan comment on the first point.

On the second point, everybody who gets that temporary permit signs that they understand that this is a temporary permit. This doesn't avoid the problem that undoubtedly will occur later with people saying, well, I depend on it now; circumstances have changed. We no doubt will have a difficult time, but it is similar to the temporary permits we've issued in crab and in other fisheries, and we have them signed. We could have them sign in blood, I guess, but it probably wouldn't make a lot of difference at the end of the day when the time comes to say that these temporary quotas are no longer there. No question about it, there will be people complaining.

David, perhaps you could comment.

Mr. David Bevan (Director General, Conservation and Protection, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): We recognize that high-grading takes place, obviously, for somebody who maximizes the value of their catch. So they're changing the composition of their catch. That means it's something we can see when we land it.

There has been a lot of work done on comparing observed vessels, where high-grading doesn't take place, to unobserved vessels. That work is going to continue. We have had successful charges laid in the crab fishery related to people who were landing crab that obviously had been high-graded, and we were able to prove that by comparing the observed versus the unobserved catches. We're looking at that same kind of approach in the shrimp fishery, and we should be able to move that along this year.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Easter.

Now, we'll go to John.

Are you...?

Mr. Gary Lunn: I would like to get my answer in writing with respect to science cutbacks and the FRCC recommendations on seals.

John has some questions.

Mr. John Cummins: Minister, I have some concerns about this equity issue, and I'm somewhat afraid that this principle may be compromised.

• 1010

Under your watch, last year American fishermen doubled their share of the catch of Canadian sockeye. The justification for it was that they got fewer fish, 1.25 million as opposed to 1.3 million. But if you look at the bigger picture and you do a ratio of U.S. interceptions of Canadian salmon to Canadian interceptions of U.S. salmon, the ratio goes from 2:1 in 1993 to almost 4:1 in 1998. In other words, on a percentage basis, the Americans are getting an awful lot more Canadian fish than we're getting of theirs, and your comments don't give me too much faith that you're going to maintain that equity principle.

Mr. David Anderson: Mr. Cummins, on what you've said about shifting fish, with respect to United States fishermen taking advantage, I simply put to you that it's because we haven't had effective agreements to stop that. If we continue to argue that every fish is to come back to Canada, as we have in the past, we will continue to have a worsening situation, and the very problem you've outlined right now will get worse and worse.

We have to recognize that at some stage we have to get some agreement that creates some limit and cap on American fisheries, such as we had with Washington State last year. That was a very effective arrangement, very much in Canada's interest.

Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Minister, it may be a good one for you, but—

The Chairman: Just a minute now, John. We have to let him finish.

Mr. John Cummins: I've heard all I want to hear. I asked the question and I've heard—

The Chairman: You don't decide. I decide as chairman, and you don't overrule me.

The minister will have an opportunity to complete his—

Mr. David Anderson: Mr. Cummins, if we get down to one or two fish left and they're all caught by Americans, you could say they've caught every fish, a thousand percent, a million percent, whatever it might be, but it's irrelevant if we keep having the resource decline. What we're trying to do is expand the resource, make arrangements that allow effective conservation so that we can in fact still have good fishing opportunities.

The problem is, we keep arguing on the equity principle as the equity of who will have the right to catch the last damn fish. That doesn't make sense.

Mr. John Cummins: The issue is not the agreement. The issue is, as Mr. Fortier said, that Canada had not vigorously pressed to have the issue resolved.

On another issue, you mentioned this morning this new aquaculture czar. He was before this committee, and he told us that there was a transmission of diseases from wild stocks to farm salmon, that this was common. He also suggested that aquaculture practices often put wild stocks back in the river.

It seems to me that your job is to protect wild fish and fish habitat, and I think you're in a bit of a conflict with this aquaculture czar.

Mr. David Anderson: My principle is fish first and wild fish first of all. That's the fundamental principle from which we start with aquaculture, that wild fish come first. The real issue is what element of risk you're going to take: a one in a million chance of a transfer of disease, a one in 10,000 chance—or whatever it might be. That's where the argument comes and it can be where differences of opinion naturally occur.

With respect to the actual aspect of transfer of disease from wild fish to caged fish, which I'm sure could occur, I'm much more concerned about the transfer of disease from the farm fish to the wild fish—not the way you've described it, but the other way around.

Mr. John Cummins: The commissioner did. That was his comment.

Mr. David Anderson: Okay. Maybe the commissioner could come back here for further questioning on his views, but my concern, my view, is that we must take every care we can with respect to transfer of disease from farm fish to wild fish. The reason for this is because the schooling of fish in cages done by aquaculture obviously creates issues that have to be addressed with respect to disease transmission.

Food issues come up as well, which are being considered by a committee of the House. There are a number of major issues. But fundamentally, the principle we have is that wild fish come first.

The Chairman: Thanks, Mr. Cummins.

We have about 12 or 15 minutes left, and I'd like to divide it among the three opposition parties.

Yvan.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Minister, apparently I have only five minutes once again, so I will try to be more direct this time.

When I asked you to share with me your vision of a sustainable fishery, I asked you to give me a specific example, namely the groundfish fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I ask this question because I'm concerned about the licence retirement program as we approach the fourth round of license buybacks. During round three, only 11 of 1,900 licences were bought back. I think the government may be wasting its time with this program.

• 1015

The government seems unable to tell fishers what the fishery of the future will be, what type of gear and boats will be recommended, when the fishery will open and what TAC levels will be. They need this kind of specific information.

While it may not be the type of gear I prefer, suppose a fisher learns that he will only be allowed to fish using 20 gill nets and he is asked if he is willing to accept this. The decision will be his to make. However, until the information is made available, people can't make any decisions or plans.

The situation is explosive. Last year, I saw no substantial changes within your department to lead me to believe that the situation will be resolved in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I'd like to know when this information, which will help fishers during the fourth round of the licence retirement program, will be made available.

Mr. David Anderson: We anticipate that it will cost $250 million to buy back fishing licences throughout the entire Atlantic region. Our goal, while not inflexible, is to retire 3,000 licences. I believe that so far, we have retired slightly over 1,200. In the Laurentian region, all that remains are 112 or 113 licences with a combined value of between $13 and $14 million.

I wish I could provide this information to your fishers to enable them to make some investments and decide whether they want to sell their licences, but I don't know when, or if, the cod will return. We're talking about groundfish in general, not just cod. There are other species involved.

I can understand that fishers are frustrated and want information on which they can base their decisions. We are frustrated as well because most of the time, we are not able to get information about fish stocks until a few weeks or months before the season is scheduled to open. My departmental officials and I appreciate how important it is to convey that information to fishers as soon as possible. That's one of our objectives.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Minister, how is it that we still don't have any scientific data yet, whereas the results of the last research studies conducted should have been in last fall? Surely no research or scientific surveys were done while the ice was in. What's going on?

Far be it for me to praise the Conservatives, but when they were in power, I was working in the fishery and information was conveyed t o us before December 31. We grumbled for a month during the winter, but we came to accept these decisions. The problem is, we need to know how much turbot, halibut and cod we will be allowed to fish. If 100 men can earn a living off of these fisheries, I'll even go down to the docks with you and help you pass along the news. We'll find a way to draw lots. I don't want to see my 250 fishers locked in a battle once again next summer with your fishing officers, who, most of the time happen, just to be their brothers- in- law. How can we stop this chaos?

Mr. David Anderson: I accept your offer.

[English]

The Chairman: Your time is up now, and I'll go to Peter.

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

Again, Mr. Steckle, when he talked about the sea lamprey problem, is absolutely correct. I can't encourage you more to keep investing in that program, because it's very important to the Great Lakes. But at the same time I would like to see the department...or at least have an answer as to whether there are funding programs in the future for the Atlantic Veterinary College in P.E.I.—plug for you, Wayne—to increase lobster research. They were here and indicated that they desperately require funds to maintain that very viable research.

• 1020

As well, Mr. Bevan mentioned concerns about observers and information you've got from observers, yet the Auditor General stated quite clearly that in some cases observer reports are totally ignored. I just want to know from your department, how can you honestly ignore observer reports when they're so vital to the industry?

My last question, of course—there are two of them. On the south shore of Newfoundland there's a salmon farm going on that now wants to change from non-fertile fish to using fertile fish. I would please encourage you not to do that, because if they get out, the cost on the wild salmon would be tremendous.

The last thing you mentioned about lighthouses—thank you for that. We would like to have manned lighthouses—I shouldn't say manned; men and women lighthouses, or persons—in Nova Scotia as well for lighthouse protection.

Thank you.

Mr. David Anderson: I don't know whether the manned or “womanned” lighthouses related to the previous thing you talked about with Baie d'Espoir.

I have allowed the introduction of all female rainbow trout in that area. Again, without any reference to lighthouses and human beings, by restricting the population of fish entirely to female, we hope if there is any escape, obviously there will be no possibility for whatever male and female fish may do that may lead to a problem.

So you can see the approach we are taking. We are not using the infertile fish, which has previously been our approach. We are saying, look, we'll restrict it entirely to the female of the species.

The problem is that there are very few facilities that can guarantee such a pure strain, 99.999% female. We have to insist, absolutely insist, that if any experimental approval is given, which we've done in this instance...if it proceeds it has to be from facilities that give us the confidence that there will be no male fish in that population.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: And the Atlantic Veterinary College?

Mr. David Anderson: Oh, I'll have to reply to that by letter. I don't have the details on the funding. So I could do that. I'm just not sure what the situation is with respect to funding on that.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: And the lighthouses?

Mr. David Anderson: Lighthouses—we have to recognize that—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I've got to get my plug in there for lighthouses.

Mr. David Anderson: If you're all willing to accept that the lighthouse staffing budget will come out of the Small Harbours budget, I can do it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I couldn't help but notice that the Nova Scotia lighthouse protection agency is trying to protect the lighthouses and all the facilities in there not only for tourism but for aids as well. They're trying to get the lighthouses protected and not have them fall into disrepute.

Mr. David Anderson: Well, certainly, and they are tremendously important for the purposes of tourism. People like to come to many areas where there are lighthouses, and certainly historically it is important as well. We do everything we can to work with heritage groups, generally local groups, to make sure the lighthouses are maintained.

I have to say that lighthouses are an enormously attractive tourism facility. The British have used lighthouses as very expensive condos for foreign tourists, charging hundreds of dollars a day, and for an extra price they'll turn on the fog horn every two minutes to make the tourists really enjoy it. It's something that is quite interesting. It was not considered a facility in this regard with respect to tourism. It's turned out to be a very valuable tourism asset. So, Mr. Stoffer, I can assure you that we recognize the importance and we will work with local groups to protect lighthouses.

The Chairman: Thanks.

Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews: First of all, Mr. Minister, please do not take Peter's advice on SCB Fisheries of Baie d'Espoir.

A voice: And $10 million has already been sunk into that.

Mr. Bill Matthews: He doesn't know any more about aquaculture than he knows about seals, so please, please—

Mr. David Anderson: Bill, could you keep on, on the other subject—

Mr. Bill Matthews: I'd like to hear your response on how to address the capital requirements of more than $500,000, as I alluded to. What would be the process of getting that done if there's any possibility, and how?

As well I want to talk about observer fees for a moment. I want to just ask a question. My understanding is that there was a significant increase in observer fees this year for boats over 35 feet. I think it went from $300 to $500 per vessel, and for vessels under 35 feet it went from no charge to $90. That's a significant increase, and in some of the communities where these fees are being paid, they never see an observer.

• 1025

I'd just like to get your response to that. Is there some point in time where we will stop an increase in observer fees, or do you see there being annual increases for the next three, four, or five years?

Mr. Wayne Wouters (Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): If I could just answer on the so-called $500,000 cap, that was a cap to allow the regions to make decisions within that cap. They can review proposals and come forward and make decisions on that basis. Anything over that...there's not a cap saying we're not prepared to fund over and above the $500,000; it goes to the minister for final decision if it's above $500,000. So in your case, it was $1.5 million. That would be subject to the minister's decision to go forward or not on that basis.

On observer fees, I'm not certain about the specific details you outlined. We can look into that and get back to you on some of the numbers you've raised. On those fees, we've tried to introduce them in a way that the industry is offsetting some of the cost, a small portion of the cost.

Will fees ever go up in the future? I guess we have to look at the overall financial viability of those fisheries before we make that decision, but I don't think we could say today that a fee will never go up. We don't intend to do that right now, nor have we gone to the minister with any proposals to increase fees, but I can't say down the road where that will be.

Mr. Bill Matthews: The only reason I asked the question is this year there was a significant increase, and fishermen, with the cost of their licences, are now being hit with increases on observer fees. A lot of them are finding it difficult. A lot of these fisheries are not very lucrative. That's why I asked the question.

Mr. Wayne Wouters: There are other fisheries where in fact the fees really haven't gone up at all, very lucrative fisheries where they're paying a very small amount, in fact less than 1% of gross revenue.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I agree, and perhaps the drift of the discussion would be that perhaps there should be a balance.

Mr. Wayne Wouters: We are looking at an overall assessment of fees in the industry.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. It's almost 10.30 a.m. If you'd like to have a few concluding remarks.... One point maybe we didn't hear is that the value of our fishery on an annual basis continues to go up, and we're very pleased overall with the resource. This morning there are about two minutes left, if you'd like to summarize your appearance.

Mr. David Anderson: I would simply like to summarize by saying that people like ourselves in meetings like this generally provoke some problems.

I think we also, outside of these discussions we have that are getting quite specialized and technical, have to recognize that the fishery has been a very good news story in Atlantic Canada and indeed in the Pacific as well. We have higher-than-ever exports. We have in Newfoundland, for example, and I only take it as an example, the highest ever value of landings in history. The province of Quebec in 1989, if you take that as the base—I have the figures not for last year but the year before, 1997, and they're 140% of the level of value of landings in 1989.

Even with the problems we've had on the financial side—it's a different fishery, different structure—it is not a bad news industry at all. We talk about high tech, we talk about oil and gas and other such industries—they're all great, but the fishery still provides a very major proportion of the income, in particular of Atlantic Canada. At least 15% of the economic activity in exports of Atlantic Canada are fisheries-related, much more than more glamorous industries. I think we have to sometimes stress the good news message a little more often. It has been a good news message.

Another point I'd just finally end on is to say that with respect to seals, I recognize I have not answered this. I have no ideological objection to a cull. I'm the only minister of the last five ministers, with myself being the fifth, who has authorized a cull. I don't know about previous to that. I authorized a cull two years ago and none of my four predecessors, I might add all of whom were from Atlantic Canada, has authorized a cull. I have no ideological objection to it.

What I do find difficult is if there's not the science base. That is because of experience with other culls of predators in other areas. Mostly these are land predators, things like wolves in particular, coyotes, cougar, and other land-based animals of that type. We've had marine culls as well, which have, generally speaking, been unsuccessful. Sometimes you find that the predator species also prey on yet another species that is a predator of the one you're concerned about. It will also affect relationships of food balance. If the predator isn't only focused on cod...the seal diet is probably only 3% or 4% cod, or maybe less. In some areas it's probably less than that.

• 1030

So I do think those who are looking for the single quick fix, and say it has to be seals, are wrong. I would suggest to all of us that we adopt a reasonably flexible approach to recognize that there has been a variety of causes, one of which is ocean temperatures and conditions. If you look at the pictures of global warming, there's one big blue hole where it's colder than it has previously been. Global warming you can see around the rest of the world. Actually, there are two areas. One is off Antarctica and the other is the coast of Labrador and Newfoundland. The reason of course is ice melt and cold water flowing from Antarctica in the one instance and from the Arctic in the other.

So there are a variety of major changes, and for those who think that the quick fix is simply killing seals, the likelihood is that it will turn out to be a false hope. It may be necessary to do in a certain area. It may be possible to do in a certain area. But where we have some information, I'm certainly willing to consider it. But I'm not willing to go in without some expectation of improving the situation, because there is always the risk of making the situation worse. That's why I'm cautious about it.

I'd like to thank you and say, Mr. Chairman, any time you would like to have me back to further answer questions, I'd be happy to come. But I'm leaving behind my staff people, who I'm sure could answer most questions more briefly than I can, and perhaps more effectively.

The Chairman: Thank you. We still have another 25 minutes left for the meeting, if we want to get organized for some more questions. I think Peter is getting anxious. Are there others? Wayne.

I'll recognize Wayne, who had a point to make.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes. In terms of the FRCC report, Mr. Chairman, we are doing a seals report and there is a fair bit of information in there on seals. We're drafting the report next Tuesday and Thursday, and I'm wondering if we as a committee should have them before the committee prior to drafting that report, if it's possible.

The Chairman: Peter has a motion, or a notice of motion, on that, and we'd only entertain it if we had unanimous consent, because normally we'd look for 48 hours' notice on a motion like this.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Let's try to deal with it while Gary's still here.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Hubbard, I'm just asking for the 48 hours' notice to be waived and if possible to hold a meeting Monday or early Tuesday to bring the FRCC in—it doesn't have to be the whole group of them—to discuss what was in the papers today before we write our report. I think it's imperative for Lawrence, and for my other colleague here and myself, who may take another approach to things, to discuss it.

The Chairman: We could spend one hour on Tuesday morning, perhaps, if the FRCC could come. If that was suitable to the committee, we would certainly invite them. Peter, would that be agreed?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That would be agreed.

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you.

So, Bill, could you try to arrange that for Tuesday morning during the first hour?

Now continuing with the officials, I think everybody knows who everybody is, do they? There's one thing we didn't do this morning. We didn't introduce everybody.

Mr. Deputy Minister, could you introduce each of your people there and what they actually do? I think the minister did allude to it, with John and with Carol, but in any case, if you could do that, then we can have questions.

Mr. Wayne Wouters: With me is David Bevan, who is the director general of conservation and protection. So he can answer issues like surveillance and observer reports and the like. Also here is Dr. John Davis, who has just been appointed assistant deputy minister of science for the department; Carol Beal is ADM, corporate services; and Bill Elliott is deputy commissioner of the coast guard.

• 1035

The Chairman: Are there any further questions this morning? Yvan, we'll give you five. Now make sure we have time for answers.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: My question is for Mr. Wayne Wouters, the acting Deputy Minister.

You heard the questions I put to Mr. Anderson. While they may have been political in nature, they were also practical. You are a high ranking official at DFO. When the time came for you to develop the licence retirement programs, did a team of experts from your department give any thought to what fishery should be singled out for special consideration and was the licence retirement formula based in some way on this vision of the fishery?

[English]

Mr. David Bevan: In the buyback program, the outcome of that would be factored into the approach for the policies we would follow, in terms of the Atlantic fisheries policy review and where we want to go with the fisheries in the future.

On the fish management plans, it's premature right now to look at the impact of buyback programs, etc., but that will be one of the factors. Certainly in other parts of the country, British Columbia, for example, it's a significant impact on the effort there. We are factoring those into the development of the fish plans.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Pardon my curiosity this morning, but I thought I understood you to say that you would be developing your plan for the future of the fishery as the results of the retirement program become known.

Currently there is a core group of fishers in the Atlantic region. Do you think this core group is too large to allow people to earn a living from the fishery or do you think the number of fishers is about right?

[English]

Mr. David Bevan: We've been struggling to bring into balance the capacity of the fleet and the capacity of the resource to sustain that fleet in an ecologically and economically viable way. The efforts we take in developing the fish plans have to consider the size of the core fleet we are faced with. We have been endeavouring, through the core licence process, to bring down the number of fishermen. We've been endeavouring through the buybacks to do the same thing.

We have to deal with what remains at the end of that process, and we'll be doing development of fish plans in conjunction with the industry, keeping in mind the number of fishermen and the balance we are striving to achieve between the fleet and the fishing resource.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: In your opinion, are there too many people fishing right now, or is the number about right? We are about to start the fourth round of the licence retirement program. If in fact there are too many licences in circulation, how do we determine what the appropriate number should be and how do we get that message across to the fishers?

Let me give you a concrete example. If no one tells me that I have cancer, I'm not going to undergo chemotherapy. Therefore, I'd like to know what the optimum number of fishers should be.

Brian Tobin talked about retiring 50% of the licences, and then said that it was voluntary. Does that figure still hold, and how far away are we from that target?

[English]

Mr. Wayne Wouters: I don't think one can say at any point whether there are too many or too few fisheries. The fact that we've had a significant reduction in the ground fishery overall—in fact, there has been a moratorium for a period time—would lead one to conclude that overall in Atlantic Canada there are too many fishermen in capacity chasing too few fish. We recognize that. That's why the overall plan has been to reduce the capacity in the Atlantic ground fishery by 50%.

Other fisheries, like the shrimp fishery, which is less labour intensive, are expanding; therefore there's a need to increase the number of fishermen going into the fishery. But overall I guess we would argue there is a need to continue to reduce the capacity. The target is roughly 50% reduction in capacity for Atlantic Canada.

• 1040

The Chairman: Thank you, merci, Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Drouin.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Wouters, surely you and the other departmental representatives are familiar with the proposal respecting the cod fishery put forward by a coalition called MORUE. I'd like to hear your views on this proposal. It may be a little early yet to discuss the outcome, but without calling into question the studies that have been conducted, cod stocks would appear to be a little more plentiful than what the quotas would suggest, according to what some fishers have observed and the accidental catches landed. The proposed 10% seems reasonable and would enable some people to go back to earning their livelihood. Where does the government stand on this?

[English]

Mr. David Bevan: We've heard the suggestion that there's more cod there than perhaps was determined by the session that was held in Quebec earlier this spring. I think it's premature, though, to start talking about what might be done in response to the bycatch. We'd need to have scientific advice, and certainly that hasn't come forward yet.

It would be risky of us to take steps to increase the harvest unless we know that the fish are there. Following the precautionary approach, we have to be sure the stocks can sustain extra pressure before we risk them and risk the future of the fishery.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Drouin: Mr. Bevan, are you saying that a decision won't be made this year, or that a decision will in fact be taken within the next few days or weeks?

[English]

Mr. David Bevan: The groundfish plan for the gulf has not yet been finalized, as you heard earlier. We have to undertake more deliberations right now to determine what the fishery will look like this year. We will act cautiously, and advice or information coming forward from bycatches is something that would have to be factored into the overall scientific advice before we'd act on it. We must be cautious, otherwise we'll end up doing damage that can't be repaired to the stocks.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Drouin: But one will be made soon?

[English]

Mr. David Bevan: It will be soon for this year's fishery, yes.

Mr. Claude Drouin: Okay. Thank you.

The Chairman: We probably have a little bit of time left, but the main purpose of our meeting this morning was to consider the estimates. With that, our committee has several votes to take on the estimates so I can report back to the House. I have some questions here our clerk has given me to put to the committee.

Vote 1 consists of a considerable amount of money. In fact there's $205,577,500 apparently that was already approved under interim supply. Vote 5 is less the amount of $32,273,000, and vote 10 is less the amount of $227,395,833.33.

I suppose we can pass this by a specific vote or we can pass it unanimously. I imagine the Bloc, Yvan, will want more money. Or we can pass it on division, which we quite often do.

Yvan.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: There's a question.

[Translation]

I want to understand, Mr. Chairman. I've been coming here for several years now and this is the first time I've been asked for my opinion on the department's estimates. In any case, if there is a vote, it will be passed on division, because I'm not inclined to support this.

What exactly do these amounts represent? The figure that has been quoted is $205,577,500. What does that represent in terms of DFO's overall budget of $1.4 billion that we are reviewing today? I'm not inclined to approve this because I asked some questions that I felt went to the crux of the matter, but I wasn't satisfied with the answers I received. If we knew where we were going, we would know where to spend our money. Therefore, since I'm not inclined to approve these amounts, I plan to vote against this motion.

• 1045

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: Just make it clear, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Maybe the parliamentary secretary would be willing to explain this further. We have an overall budget in the estimates, and in our budgetary debates in the House we have approved certain amounts of money under different votes.

Yvan, we're getting more efficient. Maybe previously we weren't quite so efficient in approving these, but that's what we're attempting to do here this morning. I wouldn't like to think, after hearing your questions, you're looking for less money; it seems you're looking for more. But in any case, are there other...?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Maybe Yvan's coming to realize he's getting more than his fair share now in this area. I don't know. But the questions are really outlined on page 48, and that's what we're dealing with.

DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS

Spending Authorities

Vote 1—Operating Expenditures ...... $822,400,000

Vote 5—Capital Expenditures ...... $129,100,000

Vote 10—Grants and Contributions ...... $272,900,000

The Chairman: Shall vote 1, less the amount of $205,577,500 voted in interim supply, carry?

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

The Chairman: Shall vote 5, less the amount of $32,273,000 voted in interim supply, carry?

(Vote 5 agreed to on division)

The Chairman: Shall vote 10, less the amount of $277,395,833.33 voted in interim supply, carry?

(Vote 10 agreed to on division)

The Chairman: Shall I report the estimates to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: We have about three or four minutes left. If your question is on the motion we just passed, I can take it, Yvan; otherwise I'll go to Peter next.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chairman: Is the translation a problem?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Regarding the budget we've just approved, no mention was made this morning of the amount DFO bills to our fishers. I'm curious as to what this figure is. Does DFO collect $50 million in licence fees? How much does it collect for joint management initiatives? I'm a little surprised this morning. The department's budget has been increased by about $300 million When DFO and the Coast Guard merged their operations, we anticipated that costs would decrease in the ensuing years.

[English]

The Chairman: I will have to rule—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: DFO's budget has increased, and more is being taken out of the pockets of our fishers.

[English]

The Chairman: —you out of order on this. You had an opportunity, and that was part of the estimates. There are sections here dealing with revenues.

I'll go to Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you. Again, I can't stress this enough on the seals. If the department encourages a cull on seals, it won't be me putting the pressure on you and the rest of Canada making us look bad internationally. Other groups will do that.

My suggestion is—and you can send this back to Mr. Efford one more time; I don't know how many times I have to say it—if you want an increase in seal quotas, develop the markets for those seals and you'll have our support. If you just go out and have a slaughter of seals and let them rot on the ocean floor, I can assure you all of Canada and the rest of the nations will come right after you big time. You'll have effects that are wide-reaching right across this country, not just on seals. Develop a market, increase the seal quotas in that regard, and you won't have a problem.

Secondly, on the ignoring of observer reports, as my colleague said, they pay $90 for the observer fees, and the Auditor General says management ignores some observer information. I can only speculate that you ignore that information for political favouritism to the corporate sector. I just want to get your comments on that.

If you believe in a sustainable fishery...you were going to allow Clearwater and Donna Rae Ltd., two big companies, 2,000 traps off the 50-mile limit for an experimental exploratory effort. If that is the case, why don't you allow the small inshore fleet to make that exploratory effort? Why don't you let them do it? Why give it to the corporations? Again, I go back to the fact that there's an incestuous relationship, in my opinion, between the corporate sector fleet and DFO.

The Chairman: Thank you, Peter.

With that, we'll adjourn our meeting this morning. There's another committee coming in here. We have to clear the room.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I have a motion, with 48-hour notice.

A voice: We did it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, this is to ask Mr. Davis to appear before the committee.

The Chairman: Who?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Davis, the new AD of science.

The Chairman: So there is a 48-hour notice of motion.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I just want to let everybody know that will be coming up.

We need the scientific evidence on the sea lamprey.

The Chairman: We'd like to thank the officials for coming this morning. We will certainly welcome you back again as the situation may require.

• 1050

The meeting is adjourned