FISH Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 18, 1997

• 1533

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): We're here under our order of reference from the House of Commons dated Wednesday, October 1, 1997, main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998, votes 1, 5 and 10 under Fisheries and Oceans.

We're pleased to have the Honourable David Anderson, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, here today. We also have some members of the minister's department with us as well. We'll ask the minister to make an opening statement and perhaps introduce the witnesses he has with him if he so wishes.

Mr. Anderson.

The Honourable David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen, I have with me the deputy minister, Mr. Wayne Wouters, and Ms. Cheryl Fraser, who is the assistant deputy minister.

I would like to thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you, and I would like to commend all members for their diligence in studying what is an extremely decentralized and complex department.

[Translation]

The department's mandate, programs and services affect the lives and livelihoods of tens of thousands of people who are involved in a wide range of occupations in marine transportation, tourism, fishing and other ocean and freshwater industries throughout Canada. They also affect the lives of all people who depend on these industries.

It is important that our actions be well understood by the public and by Members of Parliament. I welcome this opportunity to appear before you and, in an opening statement, to address some of the issues and concerns that you have raised at your previous meetings.

• 1535

As you consider these estimates, I would like to remind you that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is going through a period of historic change. That change both flows from and gives expression to the government's overarching agenda to promote knowledge and job creation, achieve sustainable development and "get government right".

Today, I want to discuss my long-term priorities, which include a sustainable fishery of the future, ocean resources, habitat and B.C. salmon. However, I know committee members have recently been spending time on science, TAGS and B.C. fisheries, so these are the subjects I will focus on in my remarks.

One of my long-term priorities is to manage, protect and allocate ocean resources that support self-reliant fisheries. This is done by conserving Canada's fisheries resources and ensuring sustainable utilization of them in a renewed relationship with stakeholders.

As you are no doubt aware, the new Oceans Act came into force on January 31 of this year. The act formally asserts Canada's sovereign rights over our maritime zones, including the 200- nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone.

The act also gives my department the lead in coordinating most federal marine activities. We are now developing an oceans strategy in consultation first with the provinces and territories, aboriginals and then with other stakeholders. This strategy will ensure all our ocean resources are managed responsibly and are not depleted.

I am also certain that members here welcomed the United Nations Fish Agreement on Straddling Stocks. When it comes into force, this agreement will provide the foundation in international law for effective conservation of straddling and highly migratory stocks on the high seas. I hope I can count on your support in an expeditious review of the implementing legislation, which I hope to put before the House very soon.

[English]

Today, the central idea of sustainable development is that we cannot compromise the ability of future generations to similarly enjoy and use our resources. As a result, we are taking a cautious and conservation-based approach to the management of the fishery.

The Atlantic groundfish collapse of the early 1990s was without precedent. Most fisheries for cod and other groundfish were closed in order to permit stock rebuilding, and tens of thousands of fishermen and plant workers lost their jobs. The causes of the collapse were examined by two independent bodies, the Task Force on Incomes and Adjustment and the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, and they had similar findings. In fact, the finding was that everyone involved in the fishery contributed to its collapse. The mistakes included overfishing; overestimating stock sizes; fishing abuses, such as discarding and high-grading; and changes in the marine ecosystem.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we have learned from that groundfish collapse. Management is now carried out on a precautionary basis, erring on the side of the fish. Fishermen now have an increased role in the process. On the east coast, fisheries do not proceed until appropriate conservation and harvesting plans are submitted by the fishermen. When fisheries reopened along the southern and western Newfoundland coast this year, industry and government cooperated to develop measures to ensure the recovering stocks would be fully protected by the resumed fishing. Conservation harvesting plans provided for effort control, by-catch limitations, catch monitoring, and minimized harvest of small fish.

• 1540

We are developing management plans through an integrated approach where all departmental sectors, including science, management and enforcement, cooperate and are brought into the advisory process with the industry. So far, 42 integrated fisheries management plans have been developed, and it is intended to have such integrated plans in all major fisheries. Moreover, for 20 fisheries, industry has decided on a voluntary basis to enter into co-management agreements to take on an increased role in managing the fisheries.

Let me speak in more detail about the role and importance of science in my department. We have made the science process more open, transparent and inclusive in the past few years. The Atlantic stock assessment process now includes fishermen and university scientists, and similar changes are being made to the Pacific stock assessment process.

The Fisheries Resource Conservation Council was established in 1993 to give independent advice on conservation issues for Atlantic groundfish simultaneously to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and to the public. The FRCC is a partnership of scientists, stakeholders and government.

A Pacific Salmon Conservation Council will be operational in the spring of next year. The council will similarly provide independent advice on conservation issues related to Pacific salmon and their habitat.

The stock assessment and conservation process of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is conducted in a rigorous, transparent and collaborative fashion. Stock status reports are now produced for all stocks. As an example, let me describe the process the department goes through to determine what shape Atlantic stocks are in.

The department carries out research surveys that involve fishing in a certain area in order to get an idea of the strength of the stock. Oceanographic and environmental information is also gathered, and people outside the department who might have particular information or experience are brought in to the process. For example, hands-on knowledge of commercial fishermen is employed through the mini stock surveys under the sentinel surveys program, or sentinel fisheries program.

We now have two major new surveys under way to collect information on the abundance of cod. These include an inshore acoustic survey and the offshore sentinel survey to complement the inshore sentinel surveys and the Department of Fisheries and Ocean's research vessel surveys.

As I mentioned earlier, a multidisciplinary approach is at the core of the stock assessment. When stock status information has been gathered in the field, it undergoes a process of analysis that is rigorous and open. Working reports on stock assessments are reviewed by a multidisciplinary committee of experts drawn from DFO and from other organizations that might have useful experience and knowledge. This peer review ensures that the appropriate stock assessment methods have been used. It also assures that the work was done correctly, and that the interpretations of the information gathered are reasonable interpretations. Once the comments are received, the writers of the working reports revise them, and stock status reports are produced. They are provided freely to the public on the World Wide Web and at our DFO offices.

DFO's science is designed to achieve an important public policy goal—the conversation and wise management of Canada's ocean resources for this generation and for generations that follow. Mr. Chairman, you may recall that we held a forum on the role of science in fisheries management at the Summit of the Sea Conference in St. John's, Newfoundland, a few weeks ago. Further improvements to the stock assessment process are being made as a result of suggestions made at that forum.

• 1545

While there is some merit in the concept of a fully independent and wholly unfettered research branch, there is also value in science that is integrated to public policy goals. I believe that fishery science must be a partnership of fishermen, of government and university-based scientists, and of course the fisheries managers. In the end, however, science does not set the level of allocations. In the end, the final responsibility is mine as minister responsible in the House of Commons. I will continue to make those decisions based on the precautionary approach, taking into consideration the advice of both the industry and departmental officials.

If I could, I'd like to say a word or two about the aid to displaced west coast fishermen. I know members of this committee are all aware that, since 1980, there have been a series of studies of the west coast fishery, and they have concluded that the salmon resource could not sustain the size of that fleet. Indeed, I was a member of this very committee myself more than 25 years ago, and we looked into that very issue of fleet reduction on the west coast under the so-called Davis fleet reduction round.

We've also learned this lesson in other jurisdictions. The Pacific policy round table, which was made up of industry participants, confirmed that a reduction of up to 50% in the British Columbia fleet was necessary to sustain the salmon fishery in the long run.

It was to respond to these issues that the Pacific salmon revitalization strategy was introduced in March of 1996. Since that time, the west coast fleet has been reduced by approximately 32% in terms of its catching ability. For the 1997 fishing season, this meant a $21 million increase in revenues for those in the remaining fleet. In other words, not only was the fleet reduced, the income of fishermen went up dramatically as a result of the fleet reduction plan.

Fleet reduction simply had to be done. Without it, there would have been more boats on the water, fishing for the same number of fish. Without fleet rationalization, more fishermen would have come out of the fishing season with even lower financial returns.

Now, I'd like to remind committee members of an analysis of the expected job loss in the analysis done in 1996—the bad salmon season of that year—and the Pacific salmon revitalization strategy, which was undertaken approximately thirteen months ago by Doug Kerley, the jobs protection commissioner of British Columbia. When he reported in October of last year, he estimated that $20 million would be required to assist displaced fishermen. The government has surpassed even his recommendations, and the work continues.

I would like you to note that the government has in fact spent $136 million over the past two years, on assistance measures for west coast fishermen who have been displaced by fleet rationalization, including, of course, money for licence buy-back. Of that $136 million, over $26 million has been spent by the Department of Human Resources Development, and that money has funded 105 projects and assisted approximately 3,600 displaced fishermen to develop new skills. This was done under a partnership with Coastal Communities Network, the UFAWU, and others.

Funding from my own department has contributed the balance of the $136 million. That funding has been for the initiatives that include the original licence buy-back program, the current gear payment and access-to-credit programs, and the recently completed funding of $7.25 million in habitat projects. Many, indeed most, of those habitat projects have employed and are employing displaced fishermen.

All sectors of the salmon fishing industry in British Columbia recognize the importance of reducing the size of the fleet. It has not made the decisions any easier, but tough decisions were necessary if we were to continue serving the future generations of west coast fishermen.

• 1550

Strong conservation and management measures that were taken, particularly this year, have resulted in higher returns of most salmon stocks. Even with these stringent measures in place, commercial fishermen harvested almost three times as many fish as they harvested in 1996. The commercial sockeye harvest exceeded the average of the past ten years.

But there is a critical element in the 1997 west coast fisheries that members here have not yet had an opportunity to discuss, and that is that the price of salmon was at an all-time low. It is extremely rare that the price of salmon is not set by the Bristol Bay pack of Alaska. This year, thanks to the dramatic increase in farm fish, not only did we have the Bristol Bay pack decline, but we had price declines as well, which is virtually unprecedented. Prices declined 25% to 30%.

Now, with regard to the TAGS program, on the question of aid to fishermen of Atlantic Canada and Quebec who have been displaced by the groundfish prices, I remind members that a senior official of Human Resources Canada has been appointed to lead a review of the post-TAGS situation. Mr. Eugene Harrigan has been appointed to this important function, and that was announced on October 3 by my colleague, the Honourable Pierre Pettigrew, Minister of Human Resources Development.

TAGS is expected to end in May 1998, and this review will focus on the impact of the end of the program on TAGS clients, their communities and their provinces. The review involves consultation with government officials in each of the provinces, and there are consultations with representatives of other partners and stakeholders, including key business, labour and other organizations with an interest in the ground fishery.

Provinces are being invited to participate in these stakeholder consultations as well. It is expected that Mr. Harrigan will report to Minister Pettigrew by the end of the year, and certainly I look forward—and I know he looks forward—to the comments and advice you will receive in your upcoming tour of Atlantic Canada.

I have to say that some critics have tried to compare the aid we have given to disabled fishermen and fish plant workers in British Columbia to that given in Atlantic Canada. First, the differences in the situations must be recognized. The B.C. salmon industry has not been under any moratorium. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, the landings of salmon on the west coast are up dramatically in 1997 over the past year, unlike the situation in Atlantic Canada, where there was no fishery at all in communities that had no other economic base.

The groundfish moratoria devastated not only the fishing industry, but of course provincial economies, particularly in Newfoundland. It threw approximately 50,000 people directly out of work, fishermen and plant workers, not only for one season, but for many seasons. It also affected thousands more who worked in service industries in hundreds of communities that depended on the ground fishery for their economic survival.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, the Pacific salmon revitalization strategy was essential to save British Columbia from the prospect of devastated salmon stocks and a possible long-term moratorium similar to that which had to be put in place in Atlantic Canada.

With respect to the Pacific Salmon Treaty, as I have mentioned, I'm committed to long-term conservation and rebuilding of stocks, but we are all aware that the Canadian efforts to reduce the Canadian Pacific salmon fleet and to restrict fisheries are not enough if we fail to deal with our disagreements with the United States. There are no quick fixes to the Pacific Salmon Treaty problem. Resolution of this issue will require time, determination and leadership, on both sides.

Ladies and gentlemen, bilateral cooperation is essential to ensure the sustainable management of salmon in the domestic waters of Canada and the United States, because salmon migration makes cooperation absolutely essential.

• 1555

We now have in place an agreed-upon process to rejuvenate the discussions toward a resolution of the salmon treaty differences. We have two eminent persons charged with giving new energy to negotiations aimed at implementing the treaty's principles—namely, Dr. David Strangway of Canada and Mr. William Ruckelshaus of the United States. They will guide future talks among stakeholders.

Their mandate is to provide recommendations on a process to reach a solution before the 1998 fishing season. In fact, they are expected to report at the end of this year or early in January. Whatever process they recommend, the two principles of the treaty, conservation and equity, must be respected in the subsequent negotiations. I would remind you, of course, that those two gentlemen were appointed by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada.

Last week I was able to meet with fishermen in Prince Rupert, the community that was probably most hit by the American catch of Canada-bound stocks last summer. Those fishermen want an agreement under this treaty, and I believe they deserve such an agreement.

I also travelled last week to the United States and met with the governors of Alaska, Washington State and Oregon. As you're well aware, the management of fisheries in the United States is different from under our Constitution. The governors of those three states have the primary responsibility.

In two weeks I'll be travelling once again to Washington, D.C., for another round of meetings on the treaty. I want an agreement, but we should never forget for a minute that we're dealing with an essentially flawed treaty under which striking an agreement is proving to be immensely difficult. The treaty was signed in 1985 under artificial circumstances, and it was rushed to meet artificial deadlines. In the end, Canadian fishermen have been the losers from the rushed process.

But remember something else: the fish that were returning to spawn in Canadian waters and that were generated in Canadian waters were being taken in American territorial waters—within, in fact, the territorial waters of the state of Alaska. Some of those nets taking those fish bound for Canada were actually attached to the shore of the American coast.

Now, we cannot under those circumstances force an agreement. Reasonable people understand that. Cooperative efforts, however, may convince the Americans, and the Alaskans in particular of the Americans, that a mutually beneficial agreement is possible. But these efforts at cooperation should not be confused for anything but forceful advocacy of the Canadian position. I have advocated that Canadian position at every possible opportunity.

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to address the members of the committee. I'll turn now to whatever comments or questions you may have and do my best to answer them with the assistance of my staff.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We also have with us the Secretary of State for Fisheries and Oceans and Agriculture and Agri-Food, Mr. Gilbert Normand.

We'll now go to questions, first of all to British Columbia, to Mr. Duncan, who wishes to share his time with Mr. Hilstrom from Manitoba. I presume that's your intention.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): And Mr. Lunn.

The Chairman: So we're going to carve up your time into three sections. I'm going to be watching the clock very carefully.

Then we'll go to the member from Labrador, the member from Quebec, and so on.

Mr. Duncan, one question.

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

Minister, thank you for coming today.

The minister's idea of independent scientific advice is certainly different from that of the rest of the world. The Fisheries Resource Conservation Council members are appointed by the minister, and their office is down the hall from the minister's, at 200 Kent Street. That's hardly independent.

• 1600

What I would like to talk about, however, are the TAGS and west coast retraining transition programs and income support programs. These programs have discriminated against displaced fishermen who are seeking retraining because unless they've had a previous UI track record they're penalized. This committee has heard examples from both the east and west coasts where this inequity and unfairness has been shown. I'm personally aware of some circumstances in my community. This has everything to do with the rules governing HRDC expenditures and therefore requires leadership from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

In addition, in your presentation, Minister, you failed to address the $7.7 million retirement-promise package to B.C. fishermen, which was part of the previous minister's promise of last January.

Will the minister end the inequity in transition programs for fishermen so that displaced people without a UI track record are not penalized, and will he fulfil his promise on the retirement package for B.C. fishermen?

Mr. David Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

With respect to the science, I have never been in the offices of the FRCC and have met the chairman only once. I think you can see from what it has done that the organization does act independently. It does involve the industry and it's very helpful. There's no point in having anything else. I want to make sure we get the best science so that we can make the best decisions. The FRCC does great work, and I don't think there's a single recommendation they have made that I have failed to follow.

With respect to the programs for training, on the specifics of any HRDC aspect I would have to defer to my colleague, the minister there, but I will put this to you. Most of the programs being funded by HRDC and by us are in fact programs managed by fishermen or community organizations, like the combined UFAWU, the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union, and the coastal communities network. They manage 105 programs, so they are doing the discriminating. It's the organizations of the communities in which these fishermen live and the organization of the union.... If they are discriminating against fishermen who need help, thank you for your suggestion, I will definitely look into it. I know they've been before you previously, and if they're discriminating with the money we've given them.... And this year we've been giving them an average of $1.3 million a month. We'll be happy to look into that concern you have, Mr. Duncan.

With respect to retirement and the money, yes, I did not mention that because it is not yet in effect, and it is not in effect because when we joined with the province under the independent chairmanship of John Fryer, a former president of the B.C. Government Employees Union, we had a three-party committee that was to report to us and recommend to us what we should do. We followed those recommendations. However, the province never put up the money the committee said it should, so we're waiting now to have that money matched by the province.

I should point out that we have certain concerns in British Columbia of which you are well aware. I think you would understand this, because I know there are forestry workers displaced in your riding just as there are in mine, probably more in your riding, substantially more.

When we are putting these programs together we like to have a fairness between forestry and fishery workers. I've had requests to fund all these programs to the tune of $375 million for the fisheries workers alone. How do I go to a forestry worker who has been displaced by automation or something and say that we're going to spend more than ten times as much money assisting fishermen as we're willing to spend for forestry workers? And of course the province governs forestry workers. So maybe that would be an indication as to why the province has not put up the kind of money that we, Mr. Fryer, the provincial representative, and the federal representative all thought was necessary.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We'll hear from Mr. Hilstrom from Manitoba.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is simple and short. It's in relation to the international treaty with the United States covering the sea lamprey program in the Great Lakes area. I understand that there's been a commitment for an additional year or two of funding. I'd like to know if you, as the minister, intend to have funding for a longer term to control this problem that obviously impacts on the fishery there.

Mr. David Anderson: Yes, I think that's a very sensible suggestion, and we would definitely like to have that.

• 1605

It was funded on a regular basis for years. Now it's under a two-year program, as you pointed out.

We're discussing with the Province of Ontario certain responsibilities of the other level of government. I think there have also been proposals put forward by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. In other words, there is discussion among the stakeholders. I hope within a reasonable period of time to be able to report to you that it's back in place. I believe it's a very important program.

The St. Lawrence Seaway brought great benefits to the communities around the Great Lakes, but it did bring the sea lamprey, and I think we should take steps to make sure that protection program continues.

The Chairman: Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Is this the appropriate time to make my motion?

The Chairman: Go ahead.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I'd like to make a motion that this committee invite Mr. Ron Fewchuk to appear before this committee on Thursday, November 20, if possible. He is the president designate of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, to take effect on November 28. The order in council has obviously been tabled in the House. I think it's important we get at this right away.

The Chairman: Do you have the date of the order in council?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: It is November 7, 1997.

The Chairman: That means we have 30 sitting days to examine the appointment.

So the motion is that we the committee do invite Mr. Ron Fewchuk, the head of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, to the committee.

Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): I think we need to discuss the timeframe in terms of other things that may be on the agenda and whether or not Ron Fewchuk is available. You can't just pop the question and have the guy here tomorrow.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Can I make a motion?

The Chairman: Order, please.

The correct procedure is as we went. When I put the motion it was open for discussion on the floor. I would hope members wouldn't monopolize this period with the minister here to discuss this.

Mr. Lunn, is that the point you were about to make?

Mr. Gary Lunn: I was about to ask whether we could discuss this after we're finished with Mr. Anderson. I don't see any need to take up his time in discussing this now.

The Chairman: Is it the general agreement of the committee that we discuss this later?

Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I don't want it left unattended to.

The Chairman: We'll stand the motion for a later time.

Mr. Lunn, you have some time left from Mr. Duncan's time period.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Anderson, I'm going to switch gears and go to the Pacific Salmon Treaty. In reference to your notes, I agree with your suggestion that resolution of this issue will require determination and leadership on both sides. I couldn't agree more. But there are many points in here I have grave concerns about, and concerns about where we are and what has not been said.

You talk about the flawed treaty that was signed in 1985 under artificial circumstances. I want to point out that it's twelve years old and you've been in government for four years. If it's flawed, and I don't disagree with you that it's not flawed, throw the thing away. Do what you have to do, but we need to get on with it, because a fishery is being destroyed.

You say “We will never force them to sign an agreement.” I absolutely disagree with you. I want to make the point that we can force an agreement and we can have an agreement if the government wants to. But the government has to make it a priority with the United States, and I'm not talking about firepower or anything else.

The fish originate in Canadian waters, as you know, and it's been widely accepted that the country where the fish originate is who they belong to. There have been agreements in the past, and I'm not saying they're not faulty, but we can have an agreement. Just because they're catching the fish in American waters is no reason why we can't pressure hard.

As you know, and I agree with you on conservation, the destruction of a fishery is going on out there. We've seen the destruction of the Atlantic fishery, and the Pacific fishery is well on its way for a number of reasons.

• 1610

I ask you, will you make this a priority? Because you absolutely have to. I consider myself a very reasonable person, but you can use force by bringing in other issues. The Prime Minister can go to the United States if he wants to...but he has to make this a priority.

When I say “force”, I'm not talking about going off with our navy and so on. They use other negotiating factors, as you well know. They have to use pressure. They have to use force. If they want to have this resolved, is the government committed to doing this? I know you've committed to Dr. Strangway and Mr. Ruckelshaus.

My concern with the whole process is that Canadian people—most importantly, the people in British Columbia—have no idea of the agenda, have no idea when they're going to report back, just that it's coming. They're asking us to be patient. Within two weeks we'll be only six months away from another fishing season, and we need answers now. The Prime Minister has to make this a priority.

Will you go to the Prime Minister and ask him to make this a priority of this government to ensure that we get this matter resolved? Because it can be done. To keep quoting a 1985 agreement that's flawed isn't acceptable after the government has been in power for four years.

Mr. David Anderson: I disagree that we should “throw away” the treaty, to quote your words. It's just not a good idea. That treaty is important, because it brings in the concepts of both equity and conservation.

The very concept that you describe as widely accepted, that they are our fish, is in the treaty wording of equity. But as you read in the Sun on Saturday, there is strong disagreement on the American side, and—you're a lawyer, so you know this—there's plenty of wiggle room, as the article described it, in the treaty to support the American position. It's not widely accepted in Alaska that these are our fish exclusively.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I'm not suggesting that you throw the treaty away. I'm saying that you keep talking about a flawed treaty. If it's that flawed, either fix it or get on with it, because we have to solve the problem.

Mr. David Anderson: That, sir, is exactly what we're trying to do. You say we can use force on the Americans. Good luck. This has been the major irritant between U.S. and Canadian relations over the last few months. We've been working at this. There hasn't been a time when the Prime Minister has not brought this up when he's discussed things with the Americans or with the President, face to face. There hasn't been a time when my colleague, Mr. Axworthy, has not brought it up with Madeleine Albright. There hasn't been a time when I have not been knocking on the doors of Washington, D.C., or the state capitals of the three states on the west coast.

You have to recognize that it's fine to say, oh, make it a priority and then it'll happen. We have made it a priority. They have come back and said that they have established the process, with us, of the Strangway-Ruckelshaus agreement and process, and that is the way they want this resolved, not only in accordance with the treaty but also in accordance with the American domestic legislation that was put in to make sure the treaty would work. Because in the States you have to have enabling domestic legislation, and that has to go through Congress.

It's fine to say that all you have to do is turn the screws on the Americans, but tell us, which screws you wish us to turn? What industries, Canadian exports, do you wish to jeopardize?

Mr. Gary Lunn: The exact screw we need to turn is that the Prime Minister has to become involved.

Mr. David Anderson: But he is involved.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Obviously, this is something between two countries, at a high level with the president, and they have to make it a priority to get a resolution in this matter. It won't happen until we do.

I appreciate that we have Mr. Ruckelshaus and Mr. Strangway having these talks. I appreciate that you've been off meeting with the governors. I've been following the story closely. But we know no more today than we did four years ago, absolutely nothing.

The people of British Columbia have no idea if it's going to be next week, next month, or weeks before the next fishing season. Are they going to come back...? As you know, we've heard comments from our chief negotiators suggesting that it's going to take some pressure. Other issues might have to be brought to the table.

The reality is, to get this matter resolved the government has to want to resolve it. They can do that if they want to. They have to use the pressure that's necessary, from whatever other areas they have, to get to a resolution.

Maybe that's happening. You're telling us that they're meeting at every single location, Minister Axworthy and the Prime Minister, but we don't know that. We don't know what's going on. We're being kept in the dark. People need to know: What are the goals? What is the mandate? When are they going to come back to us? I listened to you and Mr. Axworthy at a news conference a week and a half ago, and you told us absolutely nothing that we didn't know on what these people are talking about. We need to know what's going on.

• 1615

Mr. David Anderson: Mr. Lunn, first of all, the schedule for the Strangway-Ruckelshaus process was announced at the beginning, and you're paid by the public of Canada to understand and learn these things.

The end of the year was put as the date for their reporting. Because you tell me you followed this, you know they have many people to meet in Canada and in the United States. You know that if you issue reports before you've met the stakeholders or people involved, a report of that nature would not have the validity that it should have in order to get a resolution of the problem, which you say you want. It's been long known that a report by them would come at the end of this year. That would be on process. Thereafter, the stakeholders themselves would go back under a changed stakeholder process—the changes being suggested by Strangway-Ruckelshaus—and then negotiate in the months that follow, as has been traditional on the west coast in past years. In other words, the actual fishermen are involved in the—

Mr. Gary Lunn: The stakeholders will be the ones negotiating.

Mr. David Anderson: It's easy to say we should talk about other issues and put on the pressure that's necessary, but I have not heard you respond to me in terms of saying what you would give up to get an agreement with Alaska and the state of Washington. Tell me what you're willing to give up. Softwood lumber quotas? What does the Reform Party suggest we give up? When you talk about putting pressure, you're talking about giving something up and making it attractive to people.

The Prime Minister has spoken to the President frequently on this issue, they have established a process, and you're suggesting that we short-circuit that process to somehow get it resolved quickly. To do that, you have to put something on the table. We don't think we want to throw the treaty away—to use your words—and we don't think we want to offer other things simply to buy a position at the expense of other industries or other Canadians or other British Columbians, just to get the satisfaction that we think we're entitled to under the treaty.

You talk about pressure. Because you're following these things, you know—and this committee knows as well—that for 55 years, from the treaty of 1930 on, the Americans took 50% of the sockeye runs in the Fraser River. You know that was changed, and with the Canada-first fishery in the south last year, the sockeye take by the Americans was 14%. In fact, it was under 14%. That's the Canada-first fishery that tried to put pressure on the Americans in an area where we did have some leverage. It was not easy for some of those American fishermen, particularly the native fishermen of Washington state. We know some of them were hurt by that, but we put that kind of pressure on so as to indicate the importance of this issue.

You know, Mr. Lunn, you have to recognize that we have laid the process out clearly. The Strangway-Ruckelshaus report comes out in December or early January, and it then goes back to the stakeholders under a revitalized stakeholder process. Those people who don't understand that really have not been reading the paper or watching television, because it's been said time after time, and I'm saying it again and again before this committee so that every one of you understands it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Minister, we now turn from the west coast to the east coast of Canada. We're going to go to Labrador first, where the fishery's been devastated—the northern cod fishery, the worst in eastern Canada. We're then going to go to Quebec, and then to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. We're then going to go to the government side, and then over to the PCs. First of all, we'll start with Labrador, and Mr. O'Brien.

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

I'd like to thank the minister for being here today, and certainly Minister Anderson has some understanding of Labrador. He visited with me last year, and we travelled by boat from Goose Bay to Hopedale, and I can say to the committee that we saw a lot of seals along our trip, for sure. It was during the first trip, and the Arctic ice was in, so there were quite a few seals on the go.

It's my pleasure today to speak to the minister in a different capacity. Minister Anderson certainly assisted me in a major project last year in terms of the roads of Labrador, and I'm very thankful. But in terms of the fishery of the east coast and the fishery of Atlantic Canada, of Newfoundland and Labrador, I find myself seemingly caught in the squeeze of an awful lot of issues, an awful lot of policy, and so on.

• 1620

I want to make mention of a few points, Mr. Anderson. Particularly with your officials and your department people in both the region and at headquarters, I want to talk about the concept of words like “adjacency” and “seals”.

When I talk about adjacency, I talk about the great shrimp resource of Labrador. It was 50,000-odd tonnes' worth this past year, $141 million in actual catch. Three and a half of those licences belong to the coast of Labrador, with a couple or more belonging to my colleagues a little farther north. But it's called adjacency, and it really concerns me, because, not to take anything away from anybody, I know that most of these licences are held farther south. They're in Canada, I might add, but they're farther south of Labrador. Several of these people holding these licences are not living in Canada for the most part, they're living in Florida.

It really concerns me when I see a place like Black Tickle, Labrador—and I was on a teleconference with them last night—and it is a documented fact that 60% of the school children attending that school are in starvation when we have such a great resource. I hate to say it, but it's the truth. It has been documented by the nurse and by the principal, and now the government of the province and the premier are starting to deal with it. We have starvation in a community that knows nothing else, that can do nothing else but fish. That's all they were ever born for.

Black Tickle is out on a rock in the North Atlantic, way off, eighty miles out. There's not even a tree on it. It's little island. These people can't relocate to Alberta for jobs, like I possibly could or like you could. They are not carpenters, they're not plumbers, they're not electricians, they don't have any of these trades. All they know is fish.

All I'm asking—and I said it to Mr. Harrigan's office a few days ago, in discussion about his trip to Labrador—is that we go rock-bottom to take a strong look. I think that is rock-bottom of anything and everything that I could even say. Black Tickle is a starting point in terms of having the very best in the past in the cod fishery, to being the extreme very worst right now.

I tell you, I'm not.... I am complaining, yes. I'd be wrong to say I'm not, because I am.

Can we look at two things? One, what do we do to give these poor people—I'm talking about the TAGS program if you wish, and NCARP with her—over this winter, so that those children can have food in their stomachs and can be educated like the rest of us, or can at least have a chance like the rest of us? Two, can we look at compensation and changes, at sitting down to put something into perspective relative to the policies of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?

I'm talking about upgrading from the small boats in order to be able to get into bigger boats, and about having some access to credits and so on, so that they can get into the shrimp and the turbot and this and that. Can we get the plant reopened? Can we make a slight change in the federal government policy, under which there's now a moratorium on expenditures of funds? We're caught in a bind. We had the Canadian Saltfish Corporation years ago, and now we don't because we didn't get our plants upgraded. Can we make some exemptions? The funding is available under the Transitional Job Fund, ACOA, and so on. It's a matter of a change in policy to allow these people a chance to be free-standing, hard-working, secure people like ourselves.

I'm not saying this to you on an individual basis in any way, Minister. You're brand new to the job, and you have a new deputy minister as well. I'm saying this to everybody, because it's a very important issue to me, it's a very important issue to these people, and it's a very important issue to all of Atlantic Canada. This is something that has eroded over the years.

I think that's probably the rock-bottom starting point. I don't know if you have any comments to make on this, Minister, but I would certainly like to hear them if you do. It's something that goes deeper than just a matter of simple words.

The Chairman: Mr. Minister, before you do that, are you saying that some of the people working on these vessels—the skippers and so on—are foreigners, Mr. O'Brien? Is that one of your main points?

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: I just mentioned the shrimp as an example, but I could have gone on with many other points. With the turbot, for instance, there are two turbot quotas up there, one in 0 and one in 2G-H. Only 200 tonnes of that turbot, for the Labrador Inuit Association, are allowed to come to Labrador.

• 1625

There are Russian boats. I have all of this here in my notes; I just couldn't get it all out, Mr. Chairman. There are Russian boats actually catching turbot off Labrador for Seafreez Limited. I don't know where it's processed.

We have to bring the fishery back home. We have to allow these people the chance to survive. My God, along the coast of Labrador, we have 500, 600, or 700 people in need, and I mean dire need. Then there are others elsewhere. That's my point. So various points need to be reviewed, Mr. Minister.

The Chairman: After you answer Mr. O'Brien, we also have one question as well from Ms. Karetak-Lindell, who was referred to by Mr. O'Brien. Go ahead, Mr. Minister.

Mr. David Anderson: May I start off by saying that I thank you for your hospitality. Last July we were stuck on the ice on July 14 in Hopedale. We were quite unable to get to Nain and Davis Inlet. It was a very interesting trip, and it did give me some glimpse of the type of situation that you face on the coast, By no means did I get in-depth knowledge, of course, but I appreciate your help in arranging that.

This squeeze you talk about is certainly there. With respect to adjacency, we tried hard to introduce that principle. It cannot, however, be introduced all at once everywhere, because of course there are historic fisheries with people who have gone some distance, and there are plants that were built up on the basis of historic fisheries, a fishery that may not be adjacent to where the fish are being taken, or at least where the processing happens and the fish are being taken. So it's a phase-in with the adjacency principle.

You mentioned seals. Sealing is a perfectly legitimate fishery in my view, and the numbers are very healthy. The numbers for all the seal herds are healthy. I expect to receive information that will allow me to determine total allowable catch, or total allowable kill in this case, some time later in this year, but it will obviously be in good time for the season.

With respect to Black Tickle, I again appreciate your eloquence and comments on that. That's why we're having Mr. Harrigan out in the area looking at these types of things.

Some of the direct problems affecting individuals are obviously beyond the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. My job is to deal with the fisheries and ocean side, while others deal with human resources, education, welfare, or other things. It may be provincial; it may be federal under Human Resources. But with respect to the fishery, our objective is to make sure that we get people back into the fishery where possible. It will inevitably be a smaller fishery and it will be treating the coast as a whole. Adjacency may mean that some areas will do better or worse than others, but we do not know how long that is going to be.

Many people have been surprised by the lack of return of groundfish. It's a tremendously difficult problem for those people in those areas. I'm extremely sympathetic to them, and of course to you who have to represent them, because it's not easy at all.

The fact of the matter is, however, that we can't open a fishery and destroy the resource's opportunity to recovering in the future to deal with an immediate problem. That is why both this government and Mr. Crosbie, who was previous to me, Mr. Tobin, and Mr. Mifflin in fact introduced the moratorium in the first instance: it was to try to make sure we have a stock in the future.

HRD will be looking at that. I would urge you to use a fair hand in making sure that the people of Black Tickle do get an opportunity to speak and discuss their problems with them. I'm pleased to hear that the province is also taking an interest in this matter you mentioned to us, but as far as the fishery goes, we will not be opening fisheries until we're certain there is stock that can withstand the fishery in the long term.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: There are a couple of points you mentioned, Minister, that I want to pick up on.

In the seasonal cod trap fishery that took place around the province of Newfoundland and Labrador this year, it showed tremendous numbers on the northeast coast, south coast, and so on. We had a reopening in the Strait of Belle Isle, which is part of my riding. L'Anse aux Clair did very well in the cod fishery, but that's a Gulf of St. Lawrence stock. But with 2J, you could hardly see a registering on the scale relative to the cod fishery.

I personally have my own ideas about that. I'm born on the coast, as you know, in a little community called L'Anse au Loup, down on the Strait of Belle Isle. I spent most of my years growing up there, and I happen to believe that some of the greatest scientists in the world are the elder fishermen themselves. I noticed you made mention of that in your report.

• 1630

I'm suggesting a couple of things. One, it may have been mother nature's temperature that caused some of the concern and moved the fish, or whatever, but I also feel quite strongly that previous administrations—I could name some names, but I won't for this purpose—have given some tremendous allocations for the Hamilton Bank in the winter, when the spawning and stuff is taking place. This literally destroyed the cod stock that used to come ashore in Black Tickle in the summer. The last time there was real fishing in Black Tickle, 35 million pounds of fish were landed and processed there. Now it's zero. You can see the concern I have.

Now that's on the cod side. I also feel that seals are lending themselves to that particular point of view too. You're going to have your stats, and I'm not going to try to make an inroad on that particular number, except to say that I think there are multi-millions of harp seals out there, and we have to do something about it.

Premier Tobin and I don't always agree on every issue, but in one conversation I had with him recently he suggested that we should take a million seals a year for the next few years until we get this under control. I happen to agree with that. But then again, I don't agree with taking a million seals and just throwing them away. I'm talking about full utilization.

So there are a few points. The other point I want to make relative to this discussion goes further into the adjacency. I heard the points you made, but on the adjacency side of things, slow and easy is one part of it, but allowing us to get involved in the shrimp fishery under adjacency, which was allocated to us under the shrimp landings last year, is practically impossible for us along the Labrador coast because we're at rock bottom relative to the technology and the boat sizes.

My cousin was at this committee a few days ago. He said that the investment to be into the fishery was $2.5 million. I think those are the words he used. We just simply can't afford that. We don't want to be cut off from assistance; we need to be assisted in order to get up to scratch. Allow our fishermen, the nineteen in Black Tickle, to qualify for both. Consider nineteen times four or five on a boat. Those are pretty good numbers for a small community of fewer than 300. We need some assistance. We need some help.

I'm asking if you would ask your officials—I see two very prominent officials sitting here, the deputy and the assistant deputy—to see if we could work together to put something in place to allow these people to be able to process the shrimp and other types of fisheries we currently have but we can't get access to because of some of the reasons I mentioned.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.

I wonder if we could hear from the member for Nunavut first, and then the minister.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Could we, Mr. Chairman, allow the minister to respond? I think he was prepared to respond.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. David Anderson: Certainly, Mr. O'Brien, I'm extremely sympathetic to the problem you raised. The Black Tickle situation that you described I'm sure is very moving to all of us here.

With respect to quotas, we do have a very careful look at quotas to try to make sure that once we've dealt with conservation requirements, the precautionary principle, and the uncertainty aspects.... The purpose of the fishery is to get people getting fish, shrimp, crab, or whatever it might be. It's not just simply to create populations of these animals in the abstract; it's for the fishery. On the other hand, I think you're well aware that it's an agonizing business to determine allocations and quotas. It's extremely difficult with different gear types and different areas.

As for what you said with respect to Black Tickle, I'll be very happy to look into this with my officials, as you suggested. I just think that this is probably where it should rest at the moment.

You mentioned the names, numbers, and letters of certain districts. All this type of thing was Greek to me until I became a minister. I'm trying to remember where the areas are you're talking about. I think it probably would be important to go over it. I think, however, that no matter how you manipulate, how you manage, how you re-jig quota, there is still a very fundamental problem: out there we just don't have enough product to catch to satisfy all the demands on it.

• 1635

There is going to have to be in the future a smaller fishery in Atlantic Canada. Hopefully, it will be more professional. Hopefully, it will be a fishery that will not do badly every year but the best, but in fact do well in most years. Thus, there would be an opportunity of bringing people from the subsistence level to something better.

We'll discuss the specifics of Black Tickle at another time, perhaps.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to add a few questions to what Lawrence was saying when he talks about adjacency and the share of the people who actually live in those areas getting to fish the fish in their area.

I know I talked to you a bit about the land claims agreement for Nunavut. The land claims agreement itself and also your department's groundfish management plan state that adjacency and economic dependence are primary considerations. Yet I have been told that Nunavut fishers are allocated only about 25% of the Canadian TAC, and Canadian southern fishermen—I don't know how many of those are foreign fishers—get the remaining 75%.

One of my questions is about how Nunavut is looked at when you're doing the share of the quotas. Another question is on the groundfish licence holders. There isn't one groundfish licence holder in Nunavut. Lawrence was talking about the shrimp and the turbot. How can the Nunavut land claims agreement be adhered to by giving the Nunavut fishermen a chance to fish the fish that actually are in our waters?

Thank you.

The Chairman: I'll turn to the minister for the answer. One of the main questions by both members is the Canadianization of the fisheries in that zone of zero.

Mr. David Anderson: In the zone of zero we tried to increase the Canadianization, Mr. Chairman, as I think you're probably aware. A court struck it down. We went through a period when in fact there was 11,000 tonnes of turbot between Greenland and Canada. We had discussions, and we believed that we should be taking some.... Ultimately it was decided to try to take 60% of the total TAC for the area, the internationally decided NAFO TAC. This was struck down. We reverted to 50%. As is well known, we proceeded on that basis. In fact, I believe there was a slight excess, 385 tonnes, because we were unable to stop fishermen who were already at sea. There was some minor confusion there.

The basic issue of adjacency is being put into effect. We are discussing with those who are applying for the turbot and indeed other quotas from these areas. It is to be remembered that if in fact there is an existing fishery that is based on a distance fishery, not an adjacent fishery, somebody else is disadvantaged by the switch.

In other words, we're not creating any more fish. We are simply saying some people won't have it over here, but they will have it over there. I think you can understand how this is a difficult business and people are concerned that a principle could wipe out their historic fishery in that area.

With respect to the Nunavut fisheries, there is some difference in the Nunavut area, thanks to the land settlement, with respect to management. There were proposals put to us and I approved them. It's a little different from the management process elsewhere.

• 1640

What I might do with you, Nancy, is go over this with you, case by case, fishery by fishery, and I I hope I will be visiting the eastern Arctic, Nunavut, and discussing some of this with fishermen who I spoke to at the Summit of the Sea Conference, the fishermen who were there from Nunavut.

The principle has to be put in place in a manner that is not totally disruptive of other communities in Atlantic Canada. It is the same comment that I really made to Lawrence. It is an important principle because it creates some sort of ownership in nearby fisheries of local communities. But when you're switching from one system to another, it's sometimes tough to simply say “Sorry, guys, you've fished there for years but it's now over and that's gone”. You have to switch more slowly and try to work in transitional measures.

The Chairman: Now we go to Quebec, Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine— Pabok, BQ): I'm pleased to see you here today and I hope that we will have time for some discussions.

I have two general questions for you, the second one being of a more financial nature as it concerns the budgets of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. First of all, however, in your presentation, you gave a quick overview—and I emphasize the word— of the TAGS program and mentioned that your colleague, Pierre Pettigrew, had appointed someone to lead a review. I see here that Mr. Harrigan's job will be primarily to lead a review of the post- TAGS situation.

Mr. Minister, the fishery has not yet recovered and biologists are saying that they don't quite know when this will happen. This is a fact. There is no fishery right now and you even pointed out to Mr. O'Brien earlier that the fishery would not re-open as long as there was no guarantee of sustainability in the industry.

Which criteria are used to define sustainability? There will always be fish stocks and we could decide to fish them today, but existing stocks would not replenish themselves. What criteria will be used to determine that fish stocks have recovered sufficiently? Are there certain types of fishing boats and techniques to which we should be giving priority?

My final question relates to TAGS. Which fishers will be able to resume fishing and when and how? When the TAGS program was first introduced, the goal was to reduce the number of fishers or catch levels by 50 per cent. Is this still one of your goals and how will you decide who will be allowed to go back to fishing and who will be declared surplus?

As far as responsibility goes, I think it's up to you and your department to come up with guidelines so that officials from Human Resources Development Canada can continue to help displaced fishery workers. If guidelines are not now in place, how much time will it take to develop them? I would appreciate it if the Minister could answer this initial series of questions and later I will ask a number of secondary questions.

The Hon. David Anderson: You have asked several very important questions, namely who, when and how? You've truly identified the crux of the problem, but unfortunately, we cannot give you the answers that you are looking for right now. First of all, we have to wait until stocks are replenished to a level where fishing can be allowed again without creating problems for the future. It's impossible for me to say when stocks will return to an acceptable level. They're not there yet and in some locations along the coast, stock levels are in fact lower than they were four or five years ago. Therefore, it's very difficult to say when stocks will be back to a level when fishing can once again resume on the coast.

• 1645

However, I can tell you that displaced fishers who want to retrain must receive assistance. One of the goals of TAGS is to provide them with the necessary training and direct them to other types of work. However, since we don't know how much fish there will be in the future, it's impossible to say how many fishers will be needed to sustain the industry. How will the system work and what type of fishery will we have? This will all depend on the outcome of our meetings with the fishers themselves.

You're wondering who will be making the decisions. As Minister, I am responsible for decision-making. Yes, we can consult with men and women of science and seek their advice on the fishery, but ultimately, responsibility for making decisions rests with Members of Parliament and with the members from the regions. As Minister, I make the decisions and it's up to you to weigh my actions and ultimately to decide whether I have made the right ones.

Fishers will of course be involved in the decision-making process as well. That's why I want them to provide me and my Department with all the information they have. Academics, professionals and men and women of science can also help us. Communities may also have advice to give us. The provinces also have a very important role to play. Before making such an important decision, I'm sure we will compile a great deal of information from many different sources. I hope that ultimately, the decisions we need to make will be fairly clear. The process is an extremely difficult one because we know that stocks are low and that in some areas, stocks have not returned to the level we hoped they would four years ago. Some stocks are even lower than they were back then.

I'm sorry I cannot give you specific details, but I'm trying to give you an idea of the problems I have to contend with.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I see. Without going into the specifics, you're giving me general information which, if passed along to Cabinet, would perhaps save Mr. Pettigrew some time.

You stated that some fish stocks are even more depleted now than when the moratorium was declared. You also said that there is no way of knowing when stocks will be replenished.

Mr. Minister, are you prepared to recommend to Cabinet and to Mr. Pettigrew that the program launched in May 1994 be extended, given that all of the people targeted by the various moratoriums still cannot rely today on replenished stocks? This is important. We must pause once again to estimate the impact of stock levels. Someone has to come forward now and state the facts.

If we know that the fishery will not be reopening in the short term—we've just had three or fours years of inactivity and perhaps we need three or four more years—we have to make this clear to Cabinet so that the necessary political or financial decisions can be taken right away, particularly since Mr. Martin is holding pre- budget consultations. In my view, you need to ask him to consider a transition period in your department's operating budget and in the TAGS program for the coming year so that you have time to come up with a plan of action.

• 1650

In light of your statement that biologists do not have all of the data and that the figures they do have indicate that the situation has deteriorated further, are you prepared to ask Mr. Martin to allocate the necessary funds to continue providing the required tools and can fishery industry workers count on you to do this?

The Hon. David Anderson: First of all, once we have a clear indication that stocks have returned to a level where we can reopen the fishery, we will do so. For instance, fishing has once again been allowed on the south coast of Newfoundland and this year, 10,000 tons of cod were landed. On Newfoundland's east coast and in the Gulf, the total allowable catch was 6,000 tons. Therefore, for the Gulf, the TAC was 16,000 tons. This was made possible because stocks had been replenished and fishing was fairly good.

As for your other questions, we're waiting for Mr. Harrigan's report and my colleague Mr. Pettigrew is looking into what needs to be done when TAGS ends next May.

No doubt you will have some suggestions for us and I hope that Mr. Harrigan will be appearing at some point before your committee. The Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, which operates independently of the department, also provides information and scientific opinions on stocks. I'm well aware that you have given us some sound advice and I thank you for this. However, it is very difficult to make any statement given the uncertainty over stocks in some areas of the Gulf and along the east coast. It's very difficult to say who will be able to fish cod, when and how.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: If you can't tell us when, how and why because too much uncertainty exists, you can understand that fishery workers are also facing uncertainty over the future. Some people had made commitments based on the expectation that they would be receiving income support payments for a period of five years.

I will try to stay within the parameters that you yourself have set for determining the fishery of the future. If we're not in a position to say who will still be fishing tomorrow morning, should I deduce from this that there was a hidden agenda associated with the strategy designed to reduce the size of the fishery or catches by 50 per cent? Is this still the objective? This would at least give people like Mr. Harrigan from Human Resources Development Canada some direction and some idea as to how many clients he will be dealing with. Your responsibility will be to continue working for those who remain in the industry.

That is what I would like to see your Department do. Once you have determined what the industry's size is actually going to be, I would have many more suggestions for you. We would need to do an analysis according by type of commercial fishing to know which one is viable enough and to determine if there are enough or too many people involved in the different areas of the industry. In redefining the fishery, you need to do an analysis like this. I know that other people would want to be involved, including Mr. O'Brien's people, but someone else would have to be displaced. It's the same thing throughout the industry.

I would like to know what your goal is for the groundfish industry and the number of people you expect to have involved in it. Then we will try and work with you to maximize benefits, to determine what type of fishing vessels and gear will be selected and what direction the industry will take.

Will our focus be on the marketing of fresh fish, a market where growth is exponential? We could supply you with the figures which show that increased handling generates more work for people.

• 1655

I can give you an example. If we were to ask midshore trawlers which ply the waters in the gulf and which land an average of 50,000 tons of fish per week to work with fresh fish, we would be working with a maximum of 25,000 pounds because we would need to change the way the fish is handled in the trawler hold. We would also need to seek out new markets for these fresh fish.

This brings us to another issue that I would like to address today. Canada is virtually absent from the deep-frozen or flash frozen fish market. Prices on these markets have remained steady. I would have thought that given the forces of supply and demand, prices would have increased. In light of this fact, we will be facing another problem when the fishery reopens. While there may be fish for our fishers to catch, our processors may not be in a position to offer them a good price for their catch.

The Hon. David Anderson: Thank you for your suggestions and for passing along this information. I don't wish to sidestep your question concerning markets, but this area comes under the responsibility of a division of Agriculture Canada.

[English]

The agriculture department has the sales and promotion division for exports of fish, has it not? That is not directly within our jurisdiction, so I don't have all the information, but I know my parliamentary secretary will obtain that for you.

We certainly wish to—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: It comes under provincial jurisdiction, and that's why you should discuss it with...

The Hon. David Anderson: Since it's a provincial matter, I shouldn't concern myself about it. I won't do anything, since that's what you're suggesting I do.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: No, but you are responsible for live fish. Provinces are responsible for fish once they have been landed. How then are we ever going to discuss this matter amongst ourselves?

The Hon. David Anderson: It's not simply a matter of live fish or dead fish. The fish on the boats come under federal jurisdiction, whereas once they are landed, they belong to the provincial government. That was the ruling of a British court in 1923. It concluded that my jurisdiction did not extend to land, even if we were talking about fish.

I want to assure you that a division of Agriculture Canada is overseeing the issue of foreign sales. It's extremely important to get the best prices and to offer the best product. As we know, Japanese and other markets want fish in the best possible condition. Very fresh fish often cost quite a bit more than fish that is slightly less fresh.

I can assure you that I'm well aware of the issues that you have raised. I'm waiting to hear from Human Resources Development Canada, from my own department and from the members of your committee. Once you have concluded your travels, I will be happy to hear your proposals. I might add that the Auditor General has also advised us on this matter.

I'm waiting until we have a truly clear picture of the situation. We have conveyed to fishers the best information we have regarding stocks and the future. Unfortunately, we cannot disclose every aspect of our plan today because there is too much uncertainty and this is beyond the government's control. We're waiting until we have better information in hand later this year, perhaps in late December or in January. We will then review the situation in detail at that time.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Secretary of State.

[Translation]

The Hon. Gilbert Norman (Secretary of State (Agriculture and Agrifood) (Fisheries and Oceans) Lib.): In answer to your question concerning the marketing of fish, an agreement has been concluded between the Department of International Trade, the Canadian Agrifood Marketing Council and Agriculture Canada for the marketing of Canadian fish. In addition, we have requested some subsidies in the next budget specifically for this purpose.

[English]

The Chairman: We'll go now to the province of New Brunswick, with Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

We've had a lot of good questions, Mr. Minister, and a lot of good answers. It appears that maybe we could spend several days at this.

It's my impression, Mr. Chairman, that we're dealing with the estimates today. I haven't heard a whole lot about estimates, but we've discussed the fishery quite extensively.

• 1700

Mr. Minister, in terms of the coast guard, when you made your presentation in terms of the department that just recently absorbed the coast guard.... Could you enlighten the committee in terms of how the new relationship has worked? Has the coast guard accepted your mandate? And how well is the new system working in terms of the coast guard being within DFO?

Mr. David Anderson: Mr. Hubbard, I'm pleased to report that it has worked out well. The actual switch took place before my time, so I'm seeing now that it's actually operational.

The concerns originally expressed about too many mandates and too many tasks for a single vessel have proved to be not valid in reality in operations. Using a lifeboat for fisheries purposes has proved to be quite possible, and we are in fact re-equipping both east and west coasts with new vessels, 44-footers on the east coast, 47-footers on the west coast.

I must fully congratulate the personnel of the coast guard for a remarkable effort in trying to accommodate a different department's approach and doing it extremely well. I have been very pleased indeed with the result.

I would clearly like to maintain a vessel fleet that is adequate for the tasks assigned to us. This of course is a tough go with program review and restraint and the cutbacks that have occurred, but I believe we're doing a very good job. Again, I would like to congratulate the coast guard staff. But I assure you that I have no ambitions to take over the Canadian navy.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Minister, I think certain people in Atlantic Canada have expressed concerns about the fact that some of the smaller aspects of the coast guard are being moved to larger centres that really don't represent the needs of the total Atlantic community. Probably our committee will hear more about this when we are in Atlantic Canada. But I think you and your staff, Mr. Minister, should be on guard for that. It's certainly not very acceptable to many of the smaller communities to see their divisions being closed out in favour of some of the larger centres.

And with that, I come to my favourite topic in terms of criticisms I have about decisions made by the department: our fish hatcheries in Atlantic Canada.

In your estimates, on page 47 you have six divisions within DFO. It's my understanding, Mr. Minister, that in the past number of years the Atlantic salmon hatcheries were working under one of those divisions, whereas those on the west coast were under a separate division. Is that in fact true?

I see a nod from the assistant deputy.

A decision was made to close all the salmon hatcheries on the Atlantic coast. On the west coast, of course, the hatcheries have been maintained. In terms of reporting to you, Mr. Minister, certain people in your department undoubtedly made recommendations to you as minister that the hatcheries on the east coast should be closed, that enhancement was no longer a goal of the DFO group on the east coast in terms of the Atlantic salmon, and that for some reason, whether it's logic or science or simply cost-cutting, all ten or eleven of the hatcheries in Atlantic Canada be closed.

Mr. Minister, could you inform this committee or perhaps get back to this committee about who made that decision, that recommendation, to you and your office? And could you get back to us about the reasons for closing those hatcheries and divesting them to other groups, which are having great difficulty in trying to maintain them? If we could get a report on who that person was within your department who made that recommendation, it certainly would be good for me and my constituents to know.

The other point, Mr. Minister, that I would like to mention is that we seem to have a great deal of talk today in terms of the future of the fishery, and there's a constant reference to downsizing. It might be good for your staff to get back to us sometime in terms of what the ultimate goals might be in projections for downsizing.

• 1705

We talked before with your science people and they talked about more and more licences at a time when the fishery was getting scarcer. Certainly it would be a great advantage to the fishers in Atlantic Canada and probably on the west coast to know what the ultimate goals of downsizing might be, of scientific projections for the next ten-year period, we'll say. Would it be possible, Mr. Minister, to come to the committee with those reports?

Mr. David Anderson: To start with the hatcheries, I am sure we were not trying to close them. We were trying indeed to divest them to local organizations that would take over management of them. Of the nine hatcheries I'm aware of as involved in Atlantic Canada, eight have in fact been divested to local groups under agreements that have been worked out between the department and the local groups.

For example, Salmon Care is the group that has taken over Mersey, Cold Brook, and one other hatchery in Nova Scotia. We have hatcheries taken over in P.E.I. I believe the veterinary school of the university took that one over. I'm not sure of the names of those who have taken over the other hatcheries, but in fact all but one have been taken over, and we'll see how that works.

The logic behind this was very much that as we were closing down all the commercial salmon operations in Atlantic Canada, not having a commercial fishery of salmon—it's down to just a very few tonnes at present, mostly related to aboriginal people, some in remote areas—and because as a result the fishing of salmon that was taking place was being done by sport fishermen to a large degree, and as indeed some of those were paying hundreds of dollars a day for the privilege of fishing, it seemed at the time an appropriate area for retrenchment and transfer to local organizations.

I could certainly look into how the decision was made and get back to you on that, Mr. Hubbard. I don't have it at my fingertips. But I am pleased to report there has been divestiture rather than closure. “Closure” is not the term that was used.

Hatcheries have an important specific role to play in various fisheries. Some people seem to think they are the cure-all to all problems. They are not. Natural habitat is still by far the best way of propagating fish. But there will be specific situations where a hatchery is tremendously important.

We were pleased that eight out of the nine are proceeding, and we hope we're going to get an agreement with the ninth group. In fact, I believe we're in discussions with them right at present—discussions involving, I might add, transfers of funds as well as the hatchery to make sure it works on.

On your second question, about other departments, I have page 3 of the briefing book. We are taking a percentage change, i.e., downsizing change, of 18.6%, which compares with that of Health of 2.7%, Foreign Affairs of 5.6%, Human Resource Development of 2.3%. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has a reduction of about 24%. For Indian Affairs and Northern Development I think the presented change is 2.8%. I might add that Indian Affairs has gone up 2.8%. The others have all declined.

So there's no question that Fisheries and Oceans did take a big hit in comparison with other government departments. Indeed, I can see only one here in my list, namely Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, which took a higher hit in dollar terms.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: You might have misunderstood my question. I'm asking about the fishery, for example the cod licences in Newfoundland. We're talking about downsizing. Do you or your department have some goal for what that downsizing might be, either in terms of licences or in terms of fishing capabilities, which is a certain factor in terms of the amount of fish being caught?

Mr. David Anderson: Mr. Hubbard, the goal is a very general one. We want to make sure we have a fishery which does provide more than subsistence for those who participate in it; that is, of course, except in the exceptionally good year. However, what is appropriate depends very much on what the communities themselves and the individuals in those communities believe is appropriate.

• 1710

In other words, we don't have a dollar figure on how much a fisherman should earn to be at the level that we think is appropriate. We do know there are differing views in different communities. Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, may be quite different from Black Tickle; I just don't know.

What we're trying to do is work out it with the individuals in the fishery once we have some idea of what are the long-term resources they will be basing their fishery on. It is going to be very much a locally driven decision-making process.

We feel that overall, if we look at the fishery in Atlantic Canada, and, I might add, on the Pacific coast as well, it is not in the best interests of the communities or of the industry, or ultimately of the fishermen themselves, when so few of them can rise above subsistence levels for any appreciable period of time. The resources simply cannot sustain the numbers of people in it.

We also realize that there is tremendous political pressure, which affects every one of us around this table, on allocation, which inevitably makes allocation extremely difficult when you have needs for conservation to take place.

Let us be quite candid here. In terms of the collapse of the cod fishery, everybody has a different view. But one consistent theme is that everybody was looking to get the maximum that could be gotten from that fishery, and that's one of the reasons why it's so difficult to manage.

That, again, is a reason for wanting to make sure that we have more manageable fisheries, where that economic pressure, as Lawrence described to us, of people worried about their kids getting enough to eat, is removed from management decisions.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I believe that's a quorum call, because the vote is supposed to be called at 5.30 p.m. We've sent somebody to find out.

We're going to call on Mr. Stoffer from Nova Scotia. We also have some motions to pass at the end of the meeting before the vote.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

First of all, I want to welcome Mr. Anderson and all of his staff who are here today, especially those from Nova Scotia. It's a pleasure to be here with you.

Mr. Anderson, I say the following with all due respect. After reading this report, I don't think there's a person in Nova Scotia to whom I could present it with a straight face. Again, I say that with all due respect.

According to this estimate, life is good. Fishing is great. We have this situation under control. Well, I would beg to differ with you. Probably 40,000 people within the inshore and offshore fisheries in Nova Scotia would disagree with that as well.

You failed to mention that there are further cuts to the DFO coming within the next two years. For you to assume that you can do all these things with further cuts coming to you, I find very optimistic of you.

I'm going to go through this quickly because of the matter of time. I asked you a question in the House of Commons about who gave the advice to reduce the TAGS program from five to four years. Your answer was that you consulted with people within the industry.

After the House I then asked the parliamentary secretary, who gave me the same response.

I then asked the human resource people who did it. They said it was the professional fish harvesters who gave the ministry the advice to cut the TAGS program from five to four years.

I then consulted with 15 different organizations within the professional fish harvesters. They've all written to me saying the exact same thing: That decision they could not make; it would be up to the ministry to make that decision.

So I'm going to ask you—and this will be the last time I ask you this, because I think I already know what the answer is—who made the decision to cut the TAGS program from five to four years?

Before you answer this, I should have you know that when that TAGS program came into effect, all those people made financial commitments with their creditors, their bankers, and everybody else within their communities, that they would have an income supplement for five years, not four.

While you're thinking of the answer to that question, in terms of Mr. Hubbard's talk about the devolution of the inshore hatcheries and so on, you're also devolving yourself of the responsibility to the salmon rivers within Nova Scotia. In my own riding, for example, the Sackville Rivers Association would love to take control of it, but they can't do it without any funding. If you are going to devolve yourself of that responsibility, I suggest to you that you give them the finances to do it.

The same goes with the devolution of lighthouses in those areas, the closure of those in those communities. We missed a wonderful opportunity for eco-tourism out of those areas.

As well, you said something that to me was quite amusing. It's just amazing. About switching from one system to another, you said, “It's tough”. I quote you, sir, on that remark.

• 1715

In 1983 the Liberal government made the great experiment, the 1983 Lockeport experiment, to go from community-based allocations from the late 1970s and into ITQ systems. I'll have you know, sir, that is probably the most devastating effect to all the fishers—and in Mr. O'Brien's riding as well.

You've taken away the quota systems from community-based allocations, you've destroyed the community-based networks, and you've given it into the hands of four or five corporates. While these four or five corporates are making tons on money and employing fewer people because of the high-technology methods with which they can catch the fish, you've destroyed 40,000 people and their lives.

I say to you, sir, with all respect, that if you want to bring back the fishers, you have to get rid of those huge trawlers, those drift nets and those gill nets off the coast of our waters. At the same time, while you're doing that, get rid of those foreign vessels that are flying under our flags of convenience, under the corporate flags, and then bringing the fish into the corporate plants. Those should be Canadians fishing those fish within our 200-mile limit.

You talked about the U.S. fishing, that dealing with the Americans is pretty tough. Well, I would say that dealing with any country fishing in our waters would be pretty tough. But this is the Canadian government. You have Canadian politicians; there are 301 of us. We should be working on behalf of Canadians and sharing the resource that we have with the Canadian people. I can assure you, if we thought in terms of Canada, a lot of our problems could be eliminated.

As well, you discuss science. Let me quote you on this report: “In the end, science does not set the level of allocations. As minister, I have the final say.” Well, Fred Mifflin had the final say, John Crosbie had the final say, Brian Tobin had the final say, and all of their final says were completely disastrous to the stock of Atlantic Canada.

I hear time and time again that there are too many fishers catching too many fish. That is the biggest bunk and lie that I've ever heard. What there is out there is too many corporate trawlers. There are too many foreign vessels out there catching the fish and ignoring the science aspects of it.

We have proof, time and time again, where various ministers have ignored science, where the science from Atlantic Canada has gone to Mr. Doubleday, he has sent it to the deputy minister, who sent it off to the minister, and for some reason this thing switched 180 degrees in the process. We have proof of that, time and time again. If you wish all that proof, I'd welcome you to come to my office in Sackville, where I can hand it to you, stacks and stacks of it.

In the end, sir, I do wish you and your department all the very best, because this is an extremely serious issue, and just talking in this format is not going to do it. You're going to have to sit down and you're going to have to remove the ITQ system, in the long run. You're going to have to support the inshore fishers as well as the offshore fishers and get those two groups together to come up with a viable solution. I believe, sir, in the end, it will go a long way.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. David Anderson: I'm delighted that our friend has wished me all the best in the world, because obviously I'm going to need it. I agree with him that talking in this format, just as he has done, is not going to solve many problems.

Inexperience, for this committee, is of course the privilege of a new member, but I think we have to recognize that the committee process is to get and delve into issues and to look at them as best we can from an independent point of view.

It's certainly true that other previous ministers—John Crosbie, Mr. Tobin, and Admiral Mifflin—have all made political decisions, as have those before. But I find it curious that a political speech should at the same time criticize those who are in politics. I feel there is a little bit of contradiction, which you'll have to work on, sir, to make sure that when you come here with your request for information you do try to make sure that it's not just a question in the House, or the preamble to a question in the House.

With respect to some of the material you've proposed, you talk about the final say, and you're suggesting it should be science. Well, democracy has its failings, and maybe technocracy has superior ways of handling things, but I still am a believer in having the political system, which has an elected responsibility in the House of Commons to the people of Canada. I still think it's the best system.

We can set up a technology system or a science system that totally isolates us from any influence we may have on behalf of our constituents on the decisions that are made with respect to the fishery, but I think most people around this table who represent fishing constituencies would prefer to have their members take an active part in what goes on, and not simply turn it all over to some science, because you have to recognize that scientists themselves differ frequently in their assessments.

• 1720

There are different types of scientists involved in my department. I have 830 professional staff, another 720 or so technical people who support them, and another straight support staff of 300. There are a lot of people with differing views.

If you look at the history of science, if you know how science works, you will discover they are not monolithic in what they say. In particular, when you look at ocean science and fisheries science, which has so many factors that are so difficult to analyse and discover, you're not dealing with a test tube in a lab, in a building, when you're dealing with fisheries science. You're dealing with a lot of imponderables and unknowns. We think of the El Niño on the west coast today, which is totally off the chart of any previous experience.

So I think you have to recognize that there isn't the unanimity in science that would make it possible simply to turn over all decisions to some group of scientists and say this is how we should make our decisions.

I've had my differences with Mr. Crosbie, but I strongly recommend, sir, that you spend the $35 and buy his book. It's one hell of a good book and describes in some detail some of the problems faced by a fisheries minister and by a politician trying to represent fishing constituencies. Have a look at it. You'll find a lot there.

With respect to the decision on TAGS, obviously that's a cabinet decision. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that we said to the fishing community, any group, go out there and you make the decision. It's clearly a cabinet decision.

The program was originally $1.9 billion, and the way our government is structured those decisions are made by political people and through the process of elections. All the key ministers were involved in decision-making, but if you mean consultation with industry stakeholders, there was that. I can get the details of it for you. I can tell you that we consulted Earle McCurdy and Reg Anstey from the FFAW. We had the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters: Daniel Bernier, the executive director; Brian Giroux, from Nova Scotia; and François Poulin, from Quebec. We had people involved in that decision.

Maybe our consultations were not perfect. Maybe we missed someone in your riding who wanted to be heard, in which case I apologize, but the fact of the matter is we had considerable discussion and consultation and most of the people I think understand it. It was not an easy decision, obviously not. But we were facing and are still facing certain deficit problems.

You asked how much further there will be in the way of cuts. It will be approximately 3%, which you'll find in the material provided to you. Again, may I apologize for not mentioning everything that's in the material provided to you, but it's right there on page 13 and it's about $40 million cut from 1997-98 to 1998-99.

With respect to foreign fishing, the only people fishing in Canadian waters are those permitted by Canada to do so, and the only fishing that's permitted in Canadian waters for foreign ships is on stocks of fish that Canadians have clearly indicated they will not harvest.

It's an obligation under the international law of the sea that if you're not harvesting a stock you allow another nation under fair licensing procedures to take a crack at it. And if we don't honour the law of the sea there, how are we going to have the law of the sea honoured elsewhere when it's in our interest? That's important to understand. We can't make up all the rules ourselves. We can't expect people to honour the UN agreement on fisheries, UNFASS, with respect to straddling stocks in the nose and tail if we don't at the same time honour agreements elsewhere.

There is no massive fishery in the Canadian zone at the present time. Let me be clear. It has dropped to about 1% to 2%. The actual total of foreign fishing in our waters is down to about 1% to 2% of what it was in the 1980s at the height of that foreign fishing problem. It's not a massive fishery out there.

Fishing outside 200 miles is managed by NAFO. That's one reason why it's so important for us to honour international agreements. All states fishing in that area have followed the new NAFO measures. We're not always certain that every vessel abides by the appropriate rules. We know there can be cheating, but we also know there are observers on board every vessel out there thanks to the NAFO rules. And we know that the infractions are simply a fraction of what used to take place in the early 1990s. We think the infractions have dropped down to literally a tenth of what they previously were. So there is some benefit in abiding by the rules and using international law.

• 1725

Those are some of my comments on this. It's easy to say get rid of foreign fleets, but faced with the problem of how that might mean damage to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, you members of this committee should think about which you'd prefer. It's not so simple. In regard to science, again you should think whether you want to be able to come to this committee and make an impassioned plea on behalf of your constituents or whether you want to say to your constituents, “I can't do anything because some group of scientists are impervious to our representations”. Again, think of that.

With respect to the budget, yes, I would like to have that 3%, but we are in the process of getting an appalling deficit under control. That was the price I find myself having to handle in this department.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

We have some important motions to pass.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chairman, not necessarily to pass but to debate.

The Chairman: To consider, to debate.

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, to you and your officials. Your officials didn't say very much today, but it's nice that you brought them. We hope to see you again. We'll probably be extending an invitation at an appropriate time.

Mr. David Anderson: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you, and I again would look forward to that. At the convenience of your steering committee, we'll work something out. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Gentlemen, we have the Auditor General's report on the west coast fishery coming down the first week in December. We have to discuss that very briefly.

There's a motion put by Mr. Hilstrom. I have some difficulty, and Mr. Stoffer too, with the meetings we're having in Newfoundland. I want to propose it all in the same motion.

We have had so many requests and there have been so many press conferences demanding that we go to more locations in Newfoundland. We've heard it from the unions, from community organizations, everywhere. The only thing I can think of is if at the end of our trip to the Atlantic region we went back for another day or two to Newfoundland. Does anybody have any ideas on how we're going to solve this serious problem?

Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Chairman, I have two points on that. One, I thank you very much for agreeing to a meeting in St. John's West, where you'll all be next Sunday night. I'm sure you'll get an earful from several hundreds of local people who are involved in the fishing industry. I will say if you do come back to Newfoundland and you don't agree to have a meeting in the chairman's riding, you'll probably need a new chairman, because Mr. Baker may not get out of Newfoundland alive. So I would encourage all the members to most definitely agree to a meeting in the chairman's riding.

The Chairman: Is it better to have a couple of meetings on the east coast prior to this Sunday night or after?

Mr. Charlie Power: I think it's absolutely crucial you have a meeting in your part of Newfoundland, not just because it's your riding but because it's a large geographic block of Newfoundland that is not going to be—

The Chairman: Would it be appropriate then to have it on December 1, on Monday?

Mr. Duncan, do you have any ideas on this? Perhaps one of your members could be present for December 1.

Mr. John Duncan: Gary would have to speak to this, because I'm moving that weekend. I have to come back one day early as it is.

The Chairman: Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: First of all, I think there are ten people from this committee going. I've already indicated my willingness to stay a day or two. I don't have a problem with that. So maybe we could—

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier, Monday is a problem.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: We would be travelling from Nova Scotia to Newfoundland then. In any event, I would have a problem because in order to go to the Gaspé region, I would have to go through Montreal. Therefore, one day more or less... Go ahead with your motion.

• 1730

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. Let's move a motion. Here's the motion we're going to put. I hope this is satisfactory.

I move that the chair be authorized to seek a supplementary budget throughout Atlantic Canada for the week of November 23 until December 1, and that the committee be authorized to travel to the west coast during January 1998 and to Atlantic Canada following that if need be. But we could just complete it to the west coast during January 1998. Is there any discussion? Is that okay?

Mr. Gary Lunn: We're not asking for more money, are we? Is there enough money in the existing budget to do this?

The Chairman: No. To go to the west coast will require more money. It was the understanding of all political parties that we would go to the west coast of Canada later in January.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Oh, to the west. I'm sorry, I misunderstood.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Let's deal with one thing at once. The trip to the west coast is really a separate matter. We've agreed on that, and you'll need budgetary allocation for it.

But there are several areas in terms of the excursion to Atlantic Canada that have been missed, including your riding. Prince Edward Island has been missed, but I think we've agreed its representatives could be invited to Ottawa for a hearing.

In terms of your riding, is that the only location where the committee needs to spend extra time in Atlantic Canada? Is there enough money in the current allocation for that? Can it be done on Sunday afternoon instead of Sunday evening?

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: I suggest we definitely should go to the northeast coast.

The Chairman: My riding. All the east coast was left out.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: What are the logistics of doing it? I think that's what you're dealing with here. It doesn't make a lot of sense to take an extra day to go from Nova Scotia back to the east coast when we're starting in St. John's, almost going back to the east coast and then doubling back again.

I think we need to work on the logistics of this and have the few dollars required to get the job done.

The Chairman: What if we devote Saturday to Mr. Easter?

Mr. Wayne Easter: I'd suggest, if it could be done on the front end, even having meetings on Sunday. To do Newfoundland and then New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Quebec and come back to Newfoundland will cost more money. If it could be done on the front end it would be a lot easier and a lot less expensive.

I agree it should be done. We don't want you to be used for fish bait.

The Chairman: Okay. Is there general agreement there—I could send you the schedule—to start on Saturday instead of on Sunday evening, farther north in Newfoundland?

Mr. Gary Lunn: What do you mean farther north? I've got a commitment in St. John's on Saturday afternoon now. Is it too far from St. John's?

The Chairman: No. We could arrange a meeting Saturday morning in a community like Harbour Grace, which is just an hour away. You're not available Friday night.

What about the rest of the members? If there's nobody there from the Reform it's okay, if the other members are available. Mr. Bernier, would you be available if we send you a list to start on Saturday instead of Sunday evening?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Saturday morning instead of Sunday evening. Do you wish to add two meetings, Mr. Chairman? We would then have to set aside Sunday morning and Sunday afternoon and resume our normal schedule Sunday evening. This means that we would have to arrive a day early.

[English]

The Chairman: No, we would have to have a meeting on Saturday to cover that length of coastline.

What if we do it on either Saturday or Monday and you leave it up to me to get in touch with each of your offices? Is that okay?

Mr. Gary Lunn: If we do it on the back end on the Monday, does that mean we will be there on Sunday without much going on? We're finished on Saturday night as it stands now. Is that correct?

The Chairman: Yes, that's right. We could go back and do Sunday night and Monday and complete the whole thing.

• 1735

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: That might be better.

The Chairman: It might be better.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Baker will be hosting the committee at his house on that day.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: So we're going to the west coast. We've agreed to it by this motion.

The Auditor General's report concerning the west coast salmon is being tabled in the late afternoon on December 2. I presume you want us to call the Auditor General on the first available meeting, which is December 4.

Mr. John Duncan: December 4 is already committed.

The Chairman: On December 4 we have scientist Mr. Hutchings, et al., who wrote the report in the scientific journal.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I think it's important we have him here as soon as possible before we break for Christmas.

The Chairman: You would prefer to have the Auditor General on December 4 and the scientist on December 9? Is that correct?

Mr. Gary Lunn: I think we should leave some flexibility.

The Chairman: The Auditor General can't make it on December 4. He can only make it on December 9.

Mr. Wayne Easter: You're going to do the Pacific coast in January in any event. I don't think having the Auditor General here is extremely crucial at this point. I do think it's crucial that you finish up those areas you've left out in your Atlantic tour so you can make some recommendations as a committee in terms of that particular tour.

You will have to leave some time to make sure the representatives we've missed get in and a report is prepared on that area, and then go on to B.C. It really won't matter a whole lot if we don't see the Auditor General until the end of January.

The Chairman: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: I believe if we don't talk to Auditor General within a week of his report coming out, the issue will be lost. I believe we have to talk to him in December.

Mr. Wayne Easter: We'll bring him back in January. The Auditor General is great to play politics with, but I want to see us come up with some concrete recommendations in terms of what to do when managing the fishery in the future.

Let's finish one thing before we start another. We have the Auditor General here just basically so you can play politics with him. You fellows know that. That's a fact. Let's finish what we're doing, make some sound recommendations in terms of the future of the fishery and then go on to that.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I agree with Mr. Easter: let's make some sound recommendations and not hamper the process. But we have to have the Auditor General here before the Christmas break. If you need another day, I'm quite happy to come to make sure we don't short-change you. But it's absolutely essential to bring the Auditor General here as soon as possible.

The Chairman: If I understand the committee, we'll call up the P.E.I. representatives on December 2, or as close to that as possible.

We have one further motion from Mr. Hilstrom. We'll get rid of that question right now.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I'm not playing politics with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. It's important to none of it; it's important to all of central Canada.

My motion requires that the president of that corporation be called before the board to discuss his qualifications to run it. The president can make or break a corporation, bankrupt it or whatever. We need to have him before us. I'd like to amend my motion that he appear here on either November 20 or the first opportunity thereafter to give us this questioning opportunity.

The Chairman: The motion is that he be called on November 20, or on the first opportunity.

Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter: On this request under the order in council, the deputy minister as well hasn't been called before the committee, and that's a very important position.

This issue has been questioned in the House a number of times. There was a late show on it one night in which we answered the question relative to Mr. Fewchuk's qualifications. I think the qualification issue has been appropriately dealt with and there's no need to bring him before this committee to have an interrogation, which seems to be what the other side is requesting.

I don't want to get into the kind of system they have in the United States, where very good candidates are lost from positions by people playing politics. So I would oppose the request.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: That's not the intent. He can come here to state his qualifications and that will be it. They'll be accepted or not.

• 1740

The Chairman: Mr. Hilstrom has made his point. His motion is that we call Mr. Ron Fewchuk before the committee as early as possible.

(Motion negatived)

The Chairman: We'll deal with that at the steering committee.

Mr. John Duncan: That's a most unsatisfactory way to handle that circumstance, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We'll be called at the call of the chair. We now have to go to a vote.

The meeting is adjourned.